Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence

Critical re-examination of a claimed challenge to Bohmian mechanics

arXiv
Authors: S. Di Matteo, C. Mazzoli

Year

2025

Paper ID

36419

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

100

Citations

0

Abstract

We re-analyze a recent experiment by Sharoglazova et al. highlighting the role of the transient regime. We prove that in the evanescent state of the stationary regime their experimental data can be interpreted in terms of Bohmian quantum mechanics, at odds with the challenge posed. At the same time, Bohm's quantum potential can be re-interpreted as a kinetic-energy term in the framework of Nelson's stochastic quantum mechanics, with a hidden-variable, non-classical, speed fitting the experimental data as well. The experiment can be interpreted as well within orthodox quantum mechanics and is therefore not conclusive in selecting or challenging any framework.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Open Quantum Systems & Decoherence research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We re-analyze a recent experiment by Sharoglazova et al.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:2512.19051 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19051 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19051

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #36419

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-11-04 01:48:08

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.