In the event of a nuclear holocaust, the only life remaining on Earth may be cockroaches, Keith Richards and physicists arguing about philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics. One especially rich source of arguments is a deterministic alternative to the standard Copenhagen interpretation that dates back to the American (and later British, after Princeton University fired him for alleged communist sympathies) theoretical physicist David Bohm. According to Bohm, the position of a quantum particle is well defined everywhere and guided by a “pilot wave” which, alas, cannot be measured directly.

Despite these philosophical differences, Bohmian mechanics makes the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation. Except maybe it doesn’t. Occasionally, a bright theorist hypothesizes that, under very specific circumstances, one could distinguish them. Very occasionally, a bright experimentalist conducts an experiment that claims to actually do so.

This is what happened last year when Jan Klärs and colleagues at the University of Twente in the Netherlands sent photons from a laser down one of two coupled waveguides towards a potential step. When the photons reached the step, they could pass through it by quantum tunnelling. They could also pass into the other waveguide. The researchers interpreted the distance the photons travelled through the barrier before tunnelling into the other waveguide as a measurement of their speed.

The key result was that, when the wave functions on both sides of the barrier were the same, the photons still tunnelled at, ahem, light speed – matching the Copenhagen notion that tunnelling occurred equally in both directions. However, the Twente team calculated that Bohmian mechanics predicted that photons inside the step – where the guiding equation didn’t have a real-valued frequency – would be at rest and get stuck. Interferometric measurements showed that wasn’t happening.

Not so fast

Game, set and match to Copenhagen? Er, no. Proponents of Bohmian mechanics immediately disputed the team’s definition of velocity. “It’s just an operational definition,” says Aurélien Drezet of the CNRS University of Grenoble-Alps in France. “It has the units of velocity…but that doesn’t mean that Bohmian mechanics can interpret the result.”

In a “Matters Arising” article in Nature, Drezet and two colleagues at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa now add an experimental qualm. The fact that the Twente team was able to produce an image shows that radiation must be leaking out of the cavity, Drezet claims: “If you go to higher approximations and include cavity losses, you explain the experiment completely using Bohmian mechanics,” he says.

Klärs, who is preparing a formal response, is unconvinced. On the first point, he sees no reason “why the same speed measurement, which correctly captures the Bohmian velocity in the propagating regime, should cease to be a speed measurement in the evanescent regime”. On the second, he says his group did not ignore radiative leakage from the cavity: they measured it and found it “does not have a significant impact on the scattering physics we investigate or on the interpretation of our results”.

This could go on for some time – regardless of how many seconds it is to midnight.

The post Experiment that may or may not disprove Bohmian mechanics continues to spark debate appeared first on Physics World.