MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025784743 · doi:10.1080/09500340308234537

Two-particle interference devices and compatibility of bohmian and standard quantum mechanics

2003· article· en· W2025784743 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Optics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompatibility (geochemistry)Classical mechanicsDe Broglie–Bohm theoryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumQuantum interferenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A number of assertions have recently been made that in two-particle interference devices, Bohmian trajectories may not reproduce exactly all statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. Specifically, let two identical bosons go through identical slits arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane, with wave functions transforming into each other under the symmetry operation. Then it is claimed that pairs of particles following Bohmian trajectories and registered on a screen opposite the slits may have observable spatial distribution properties not predicted by quantum mechanics. We point out that alleged discrepancies in fact originate from a specific sampling assumption on Bohmian particles that violates their general probability distribution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it