Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The Reality of de Broglie’s Pilot Wave

António Cardoso

Published Aug 1, 2015• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In this paper we discuss a recent double-slit experiment where which-path information is obtained without disturbing the photons in their path to the detector, and, as a consequence, an interference pattern is observed on the far screen even if it is known which slit the photons go through. We argue that this result is in clear contradiction with a fundamental principle in orthodox quantum mechanics – Bohr’s complementarity principle – and also point out that, on the other hand, the results of this experiment are the expected ones in the framework of de Broglie’s pilot wave theory

Related papers

The Nature of Quantum Particles

António Cardoso

Abstract: In this paper we will discuss a recent double-slit experiment with quantum particles where an interference pattern is observed even when which-path information is available, and argue that this result is in clear contradiction with orthodox quantum mechanics but perfectly understandable in the framework of a nonlinear quantum physics.

•Jul 1, 2015•0 citations

The Quantum Eraser Does Not Always Erase

António Cardoso, João L. Cordovil, J. R. Croca

In this paper we will first look at a particular quantum eraser setup to show that this type of experiments can be understood in an intuitive manner if we are willing to take a complex nonlinear approach, without the need to invoke Niels Bohr's complementarity or quantum entanglement between two particles. We will then discuss a recent experiment of the same type that does not erase the interference pattern when which-path information is available, and argue that this result is in clear contradiction with the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics but perfectly understandable in the framework of nonlinear quantum physics.

arXiv:1503.07583•Journal of Advanced Physics•Mar 16, 2016•3 citations

Jedyna tajemnica mechaniki kwantowej

Tadeusz Pabjan

The double slit experiment is a relatively simple physical test that can be useful for demonstrating the corpuscular-wave dualism of light and matter, which is the supreme mystery of the whole quantum physics. A particular riddle here is especially the mechanism responsible for the formation of a interference pattern in a situation when single quantum objects pass through the experimental setup. In the article the main idea of the experiment is discussed and two possible explanations of its results are briefly shortly presented: the view of the Copenhagen school and the de Broglie-Bohm’s pilot wave theory.

Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce)•Jun 25, 2013•0 citations

Wave Particle Duality and the Afshar Experiment

Aurélien Drezet

In an interesting series of articles published few years ago Afshar and coworkers [1,2] reported an optical experiment in which they claimed to refute the well known N. Bohr principle of complementarity [3, 4]. Obviously this result, if justified, would constitute a serious attack against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (known as the Copenhagen interpretation). This work stirred much debate in different journals (see for examples references [5–12]). We think however that there are still some important misunderstandings concerning the interpretation of this experiment. In a preprint written originally in 2004 [5] (and following some early discussions with Afshar) we claimed already that the interpretation by Afshar et al. can be easily stated if we stay as close as possible from the texts written by Bohr. The aim of the present article (which was initially written in 2005 to precise a bit the thought developed in [5]) is to comment the interpretation discussed in [1]. We will in the following analyze the meaning of Bohr principle and show that far from disproving its content the experiment [1] is actually a complete confirmation of its general validity. The difficulties associated with the understanding of this principle are not new and actually complementarity created troubles even in Einstein mind [3] so that we are here in good company. To summarize a bit emphatically Bohr’s complementarity we here remind that this principle states that if one of a pair of non commuting observables of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second (complementary) is lost [3, 4, 15, 16]. This can be equivalently expressed as a kind of duality between different descriptions of the quantum system associated with different experimental arrangements which mutually exclude each other (read in particular [3,4]). Later in the discussion we will try to precise this definition but for the moment it is enough to illustrate the concepts by examples Consider for instance the well known Young double-pinholes interference experiment made with photons. The discrete nature of light precludes the simultaneous observation of a same photon in the aperture plane and in the interference pattern: the photon cannot be absorbed twice. This is already a trivial manifestation of the principle of Bohr. Here it implies that the two statistical patterns associated with the wave in the aperture plane and its Fourier (i. e., momentum) transform require necessarily different photons for their recording. It is in that sense that each experiment excludes and completes reciprocally the other. In the case considered before the photon is absorbed during the first detection (this clearly precludes any other detection). However even a non-destructive solution for detection implying entanglement with other quantum systems has a radical effect of the same nature: the complementarity principle is still valid. For example, during their debate Bohr and Einstein [3] discussed an ideal which-way experiment in which the recoil of the slits is correlated to the motion of the photon. Momentum conservation added to arguments based on the uncertainty relations are sufficient to explain how such entanglement photon-slits can erase fringes [15–19]. It is also important for the present discussion to remind that the principle of complementarity has a perfidious consequence on the experimental meaning of trajectory and path followed by a particle. Indeed the unavoidable interactions existing between photons and detectors imply that a trajectory existing independently of any measurement process cannot be unambiguously defined. This sounds even like a tragedy when we consider once again the two-holes experiment. Indeed for Bohr this kind of experiments shows definitely the essential element of ambiguity which is involved in ascribing conventional physical attributes to quantum systems. Intuitively (i. e., from the point of view of classical particle dynamic) one would expect that a photon detected in the focal plane of the lens must have crossed only one of the hole 1 or 2 before to reach its final destination. However, if this is true, one can not intuitively understand how the presence of the second hole (through which the photon evidently did not go) forces the photon to participate to an interference pattern (which obviously needs an influence coming from both holes). Explanations to solve this paradox have been proposed by de Broglie, Bohm, and others using concepts such as empty waves or quantum potentials [20, 21]. However all these explanations are in agreement with Bohr principle (since they fully reproduce quantum predictions) and can not be experimentally distinguished. Bohr and Heisenberg proposed for all needed purposes a much more pragmatic and simpler answer: don’t bother, the complementarity principle precludes the simultaneous observation of a photon trajectory and of an interference pattern. For Bohr [3]: This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path

•Jan 1, 2011•5 citations

The ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of Light–Matter Interaction and the Wave Properties of the Photon

Wolfgang Tiefenbrunner

Within the framework of the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, it is postulated that light particles follow definite trajectories, and thus, for example, in the double-slit experiment, a particle can pass through only one of the two slits. On this premise, the interference of two photons is examined in greater detail. It is hypothesized that the interference of a photon pair requires the involvement of matter and, initially, that both molecular excitations and photons oscillate at the same frequency and that the continuity of the oscillation is not disrupted by absorption and emission. The molecular excitations in the light source are supposed to oscillate synchronously. Both photons arrive at the same point on the detector but may travel along different paths and therefore arrive at different times. Under these conditions, their phase difference, φ(2) – φ(1), is always zero. Consequently, no interference pattern can form on the detector screen and therefore the assumptions made are incorrect. Alternatively, one may assume that only the photon oscillates, whereas the excitation stores the phase, φ, possessed by the photon at the instant of absorption. In this case, φ(2) – φ(1) corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period, and an interference pattern can form. However, this assumption is problematic for some reasons: the nature of the matter-based memory remains unclear; according to the special theory of relativity, no time elapses for a particle travelling at the speed of light, meaning that it cannot oscillate; and the assumption contradicts Bohr’s correspondence principle. In a classical wave, the phase information propagates away from the source at the wave velocity without changing. This leads to the alternative possibility that the excitations oscillate, whereas the photons do not. Instead, the photons transport information about the phase of the excitation at the instant of emission. As can be shown, in this case, φ(2) – φ(1) likewise corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period. However, this hypothesis contradicts the de Broglie postulate, according to which all particles exhibit wave properties, and the relation ε = hν must therefore be interpreted differently. It also raises the question of how the dimensions of a laser, specifically the mirror separation, can influence the wavelength of the amplified light if a photon has no wavelength. Using replicator dynamics and the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, a simulation demonstrates that, in a simplified laser model, assuming that photons do not oscillate whereas excitations do, self-organisation gives rise to a phase pattern in the sequence of photons within the emitted light beam that corresponds to the pattern obtained by discretising a classical wave. Thus, coherent light can exhibit wave properties even if photons themselves do not. Finally, the possibility of how incoherent light acquires wave properties is briefly discussed.

•Oct 22, 2026•0 citations

Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability and a quantitative statement of Bohr's principle

William K. Wootters, Wojciech Hubert Zurek

A detailed analysis of Einstein's version of the double-slit experiment, in which one tries to observe both wave and particle properties of light, is performed. Quantum nonseparability appears in the derivation of the interference pattern, which proves to be surprisingly sharp even when the trajectories of the photons have been determined with fairly high accuracy. An information-theoretic approach to this problem leads to a quantitative formulation of Bohr's complementarity principle for the case of the double-slit experiment. A practically realizable version of this experiment, to which the above analysis applies, is proposed.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jan 15, 1979•617 citations
In this paper we discuss a recent double-slit experiment where which-path information is obtained without disturbing the photons in their path to the detector, and, as a consequence, an interference pattern is observed on the far screen even if it is known which slit the photons go through. We argue that this result is in clear contradiction with a fundamental principle in orthodox quantum mechanics – Bohr’s complementarity principle – and also point out that, on the other hand, the results of this experiment are the expected ones in the framework of de Broglie’s pilot wave theory
In this paper we will first look at a particular quantum eraser setup to show that this type of experiments can be understood in an intuitive manner if we are willing to take a complex nonlinear approach, without the need to invoke Niels Bohr's complementarity or quantum entanglement between two particles. We will then discuss a recent experiment of the same type that does not erase the interference pattern when which-path information is available, and argue that this result is in clear contradiction with the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics but perfectly understandable in the framework of nonlinear quantum physics.
The double slit experiment is a relatively simple physical test that can be useful for demonstrating the corpuscular-wave dualism of light and matter, which is the supreme mystery of the whole quantum physics. A particular riddle here is especially the mechanism responsible for the formation of a interference pattern in a situation when single quantum objects pass through the experimental setup. In the article the main idea of the experiment is discussed and two possible explanations of its results are briefly shortly presented: the view of the Copenhagen school and the de Broglie-Bohm’s pilot wave theory.
In an interesting series of articles published few years ago Afshar and coworkers [1,2] reported an optical experiment in which they claimed to refute the well known N. Bohr principle of complementarity [3, 4]. Obviously this result, if justified, would constitute a serious attack against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (known as the Copenhagen interpretation). This work stirred much debate in different journals (see for examples references [5–12]). We think however that there are still some important misunderstandings concerning the interpretation of this experiment. In a preprint written originally in 2004 [5] (and following some early discussions with Afshar) we claimed already that the interpretation by Afshar et al. can be easily stated if we stay as close as possible from the texts written by Bohr. The aim of the present article (which was initially written in 2005 to precise a bit the thought developed in [5]) is to comment the interpretation discussed in [1]. We will in the following analyze the meaning of Bohr principle and show that far from disproving its content the experiment [1] is actually a complete confirmation of its general validity. The difficulties associated with the understanding of this principle are not new and actually complementarity created troubles even in Einstein mind [3] so that we are here in good company. To summarize a bit emphatically Bohr’s complementarity we here remind that this principle states that if one of a pair of non commuting observables of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second (complementary) is lost [3, 4, 15, 16]. This can be equivalently expressed as a kind of duality between different descriptions of the quantum system associated with different experimental arrangements which mutually exclude each other (read in particular [3,4]). Later in the discussion we will try to precise this definition but for the moment it is enough to illustrate the concepts by examples Consider for instance the well known Young double-pinholes interference experiment made with photons. The discrete nature of light precludes the simultaneous observation of a same photon in the aperture plane and in the interference pattern: the photon cannot be absorbed twice. This is already a trivial manifestation of the principle of Bohr. Here it implies that the two statistical patterns associated with the wave in the aperture plane and its Fourier (i. e., momentum) transform require necessarily different photons for their recording. It is in that sense that each experiment excludes and completes reciprocally the other. In the case considered before the photon is absorbed during the first detection (this clearly precludes any other detection). However even a non-destructive solution for detection implying entanglement with other quantum systems has a radical effect of the same nature: the complementarity principle is still valid. For example, during their debate Bohr and Einstein [3] discussed an ideal which-way experiment in which the recoil of the slits is correlated to the motion of the photon. Momentum conservation added to arguments based on the uncertainty relations are sufficient to explain how such entanglement photon-slits can erase fringes [15–19]. It is also important for the present discussion to remind that the principle of complementarity has a perfidious consequence on the experimental meaning of trajectory and path followed by a particle. Indeed the unavoidable interactions existing between photons and detectors imply that a trajectory existing independently of any measurement process cannot be unambiguously defined. This sounds even like a tragedy when we consider once again the two-holes experiment. Indeed for Bohr this kind of experiments shows definitely the essential element of ambiguity which is involved in ascribing conventional physical attributes to quantum systems. Intuitively (i. e., from the point of view of classical particle dynamic) one would expect that a photon detected in the focal plane of the lens must have crossed only one of the hole 1 or 2 before to reach its final destination. However, if this is true, one can not intuitively understand how the presence of the second hole (through which the photon evidently did not go) forces the photon to participate to an interference pattern (which obviously needs an influence coming from both holes). Explanations to solve this paradox have been proposed by de Broglie, Bohm, and others using concepts such as empty waves or quantum potentials [20, 21]. However all these explanations are in agreement with Bohr principle (since they fully reproduce quantum predictions) and can not be experimentally distinguished. Bohr and Heisenberg proposed for all needed purposes a much more pragmatic and simpler answer: don’t bother, the complementarity principle precludes the simultaneous observation of a photon trajectory and of an interference pattern. For Bohr [3]: This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path
Within the framework of the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, it is postulated that light particles follow definite trajectories, and thus, for example, in the double-slit experiment, a particle can pass through only one of the two slits. On this premise, the interference of two photons is examined in greater detail. It is hypothesized that the interference of a photon pair requires the involvement of matter and, initially, that both molecular excitations and photons oscillate at the same frequency and that the continuity of the oscillation is not disrupted by absorption and emission. The molecular excitations in the light source are supposed to oscillate synchronously. Both photons arrive at the same point on the detector but may travel along different paths and therefore arrive at different times. Under these conditions, their phase difference, φ(2) – φ(1), is always zero. Consequently, no interference pattern can form on the detector screen and therefore the assumptions made are incorrect. Alternatively, one may assume that only the photon oscillates, whereas the excitation stores the phase, φ, possessed by the photon at the instant of absorption. In this case, φ(2) – φ(1) corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period, and an interference pattern can form. However, this assumption is problematic for some reasons: the nature of the matter-based memory remains unclear; according to the special theory of relativity, no time elapses for a particle travelling at the speed of light, meaning that it cannot oscillate; and the assumption contradicts Bohr’s correspondence principle. In a classical wave, the phase information propagates away from the source at the wave velocity without changing. This leads to the alternative possibility that the excitations oscillate, whereas the photons do not. Instead, the photons transport information about the phase of the excitation at the instant of emission. As can be shown, in this case, φ(2) – φ(1) likewise corresponds to the difference in travel times modulo the oscillation period. However, this hypothesis contradicts the de Broglie postulate, according to which all particles exhibit wave properties, and the relation ε = hν must therefore be interpreted differently. It also raises the question of how the dimensions of a laser, specifically the mirror separation, can influence the wavelength of the amplified light if a photon has no wavelength. Using replicator dynamics and the ‘Pairwise Interference Model’ of light–matter interaction, a simulation demonstrates that, in a simplified laser model, assuming that photons do not oscillate whereas excitations do, self-organisation gives rise to a phase pattern in the sequence of photons within the emitted light beam that corresponds to the pattern obtained by discretising a classical wave. Thus, coherent light can exhibit wave properties even if photons themselves do not. Finally, the possibility of how incoherent light acquires wave properties is briefly discussed.
A detailed analysis of Einstein's version of the double-slit experiment, in which one tries to observe both wave and particle properties of light, is performed. Quantum nonseparability appears in the derivation of the interference pattern, which proves to be surprisingly sharp even when the trajectories of the photons have been determined with fairly high accuracy. An information-theoretic approach to this problem leads to a quantitative formulation of Bohr's complementarity principle for the case of the double-slit experiment. A practically realizable version of this experiment, to which the above analysis applies, is proposed.