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

On the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics (reply to Gao)

Dustin Lazarovici

Published Feb 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This note clarifies several details about the description of the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics and responds to a recent preprint by Shan Gao, wrongly claiming a contradiction in the theory.

Related papers

Reply to `No Contradictions between Bohmian and quantum mechanics'

Partha Ghose

Marchildon's claim (quant-ph/0007068) regarding Ghose's papers (quant-ph/0001024 and 0003037) is shown to be erroneous.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008007•Aug 1, 2000•3 citations

Reply to Gao’s ”Comment on ”How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements”

Jos Uffink

Shan Gao (Gao 2011) recently presented a critical reconsideration of a paper I wote (Uffink 1999) on the subject of protective measurement. Here, I take the occasion to reply to his objections.

•Aug 24, 2012•2 citations

On the Weak Measurement of Velocity in Bohmian Mechanics

Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein, Nino Zanghı̀

arXiv:0808.3324•Journal of Statistical Physics•Jan 6, 2009•24 citations

Reply to "Maximal violation of Bell inequalities by position measurements"

Daniel V. Tausk

In a recent article, Kiukas and Werner claim to have shown that Bohmian Mechanics does not make the same empirical predictions as ordinary Quantum Mechanics. More precisely, they have shown that ordinary Quantum Mechanics predicts maximal violations of the CHSH-Bell inequality for a certain experiment in which only position measurements are performed on two noninteracting entangled free non-relativistic particles. Kiukas and Werner claim that Bohmian Mechanics doesn't predict a violation of the CHSH-Bell inequality for that experiment. We explain that such claim is wrong and that the argument supporting their claim neglects the fact that Bohmian Mechanics does not satisfy all the assumptions needed to prove the CHSH-Bell inequality. We also clear up another few misconceptions about Bohmian Mechanics appearing in their article.

arXiv:1408.2900•Aug 13, 2014•0 citations

On the Interpretation of Bohmian Mechanics

Arthur I. Fine

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1996•13 citations

Arrival Time and Bohmian Mechanics: It Is the Theory Which Decides What We Can Measure

Aurélien Drezet

In this work, we analyze recent proposals by Das and Dürr (DD) to measure the arrival time distributions of quantum particles within the framework of de Broglie Bohm theory (or Bohmian mechanics). We also analyze the criticisms made by Goldstein Tumulka and Zanghì (GTZ) of these same proposals, and show that each protagonist is both right and wrong. In detail, we show that DD’s predictions are indeed measurable in principle, but that they will not lead to violations of the no-signalling theorem used in Bell’s theorem, in contradiction with some of Das and Maudlin’s hopes.

arXiv:2409.04304•Symmetry•Oct 8, 2024•9 citations
In a recent article, Kiukas and Werner claim to have shown that Bohmian Mechanics does not make the same empirical predictions as ordinary Quantum Mechanics. More precisely, they have shown that ordinary Quantum Mechanics predicts maximal violations of the CHSH-Bell inequality for a certain experiment in which only position measurements are performed on two noninteracting entangled free non-relativistic particles. Kiukas and Werner claim that Bohmian Mechanics doesn't predict a violation of the CHSH-Bell inequality for that experiment. We explain that such claim is wrong and that the argument supporting their claim neglects the fact that Bohmian Mechanics does not satisfy all the assumptions needed to prove the CHSH-Bell inequality. We also clear up another few misconceptions about Bohmian Mechanics appearing in their article.
In this work, we analyze recent proposals by Das and Dürr (DD) to measure the arrival time distributions of quantum particles within the framework of de Broglie Bohm theory (or Bohmian mechanics). We also analyze the criticisms made by Goldstein Tumulka and Zanghì (GTZ) of these same proposals, and show that each protagonist is both right and wrong. In detail, we show that DD’s predictions are indeed measurable in principle, but that they will not lead to violations of the no-signalling theorem used in Bell’s theorem, in contradiction with some of Das and Maudlin’s hopes.