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

arXiv:quant-ph/0305020

Reply to: Comment on "Bohmian prediction about a two double-slit experiment and its disagreement with SQM"

Omid Akhavan, Mehdi Golshani

Published May 5, 2003• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent paper, Struyve et al. [Struyve W, De Baere W, De Neve J and De Weirdt S 2003 J. Phys. A 36 1525] attempted to show that the thought experiment proposed in [Golshani M and Akhavan O 2001 J. Phys. A 34 5259, quant-ph/0103101] cannot distinguish between standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics. Here, we want to show that, in spite of their objection, our conclusion still holds out.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0305020

Related papers

Comment on Bohmian prediction about a two double-slit experiment and its disagreement with standard quantum mechanics

Ward Struyve, Willy De Baere, Jan De Neve +1 more

Recently Golshani and Akhavan 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259 proposed an experiment that should be able to distinguish between standard quantum mechanics and Bohmian mechanics. It is our aim to show that the claims made by Golshani and Akhavan are unwarranted.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Jan 22, 2003•11 citations

Reply to Comment on Experimental realization of a first test of de Broglie–Bohm theory

G. Brida, E. Cagliero, Marco Genovese +1 more

We reply to Akhavan and Golshani's comment on our double-slit experiment addressed to test standard quantum mechanics versus de Broglie–Bohm theory. We show that their results, albeit representing a relevant contribution to the discussion on the realizability of a test of de Broglie–Bohm theory, do not allow us to draw any conclusion about our experiment since their wavefunction does not describe well the photon states produced by our set-up. On the other hand, we give arguments of why our experiment can be considered a good realization of the theoretical proposal of Ghose (1999 Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics ed S M Roy), Ghose et al (2001 Phys. Lett. A 290 205) and Golshani and Akhavan ( 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259 ).

Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics•Sep 15, 2004•6 citations

Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Partha Ghose

It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (quant-ph/0108038) against my conclusions are incorrect.

arXiv:quant-ph/0208192•Aug 30, 2002•2 citations

Comment on Experimental realization of a first test of de Broglie–Bohm theory

Omid Akhavan, Mehdi Golshani

In a recent paper, Brida et al (2002 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 4751) reported the first experimental realization for testing of de Broglie–Bohm (dBB) theory against standard quantum mechanics (SQM), based on a suggested scheme presented in Golshani and Akhavan (2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259). However, some details of their experiment are not compatible with our suggestion. Therefore, their conclusion, in which the experimental data are in complete agreement with SQM but show some deviations from dBB predictions, cannot be considered as a final verdict.

Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics•Sep 15, 2004•3 citations

On the Experimental Incompatibility Between Standard and Bohmian Quantum Mechanics

Mehdi Golshani, Omid Akhavan

Recently, three experiments have been proposed in order to show that the standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics can have different predictions at the individual level of particles. However, these thought experiments have encountered some objections. In this work, it is our purpose to show that our basic conclusions about those experiments are still intact.

arXiv:quant-ph/0110123•Oct 20, 2001•1 citation

Comments on some recently proposed experiments that should distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Ward Struyve, Willy De Baere

Recently Ghose (quant-ph/0001024,quant-ph/0003037,quant-ph/0103126) and Golshani and Akhavan (quant-ph/0009040,quant-ph/0103100,quant-ph/0103101) claimed to have found experiments that should be able to distinguish between Standard Quantum Mechanics and Bohmian Mechanics. It is our aim to show that the claims made by Ghose, Golshani and Akhavan are unfounded.

arXiv:quant-ph/0108038•Aug 8, 2001•5 citations
In a recent paper, Struyve et al. [Struyve W, De Baere W, De Neve J and De Weirdt S 2003 J. Phys. A 36 1525] attempted to show that the thought experiment proposed in [Golshani M and Akhavan O 2001 J. Phys. A 34 5259, quant-ph/0103101] cannot distinguish between standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics. Here, we want to show that, in spite of their objection, our conclusion still holds out.
We reply to Akhavan and Golshani's comment on our double-slit experiment addressed to test standard quantum mechanics versus de Broglie–Bohm theory. We show that their results, albeit representing a relevant contribution to the discussion on the realizability of a test of de Broglie–Bohm theory, do not allow us to draw any conclusion about our experiment since their wavefunction does not describe well the photon states produced by our set-up. On the other hand, we give arguments of why our experiment can be considered a good realization of the theoretical proposal of Ghose (1999 Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics ed S M Roy), Ghose et al (2001 Phys. Lett. A 290 205) and Golshani and Akhavan ( 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259 ).
In a recent paper, Brida et al (2002 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 4751) reported the first experimental realization for testing of de Broglie–Bohm (dBB) theory against standard quantum mechanics (SQM), based on a suggested scheme presented in Golshani and Akhavan (2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 5259). However, some details of their experiment are not compatible with our suggestion. Therefore, their conclusion, in which the experimental data are in complete agreement with SQM but show some deviations from dBB predictions, cannot be considered as a final verdict.