On the Possibility of Empirically Probing the Bohmian Model in Terms of the Testability of Quantum Arrival/Transit Time Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Born’s interpretation of the squared modulus of a wave function (|ψ|2) as the probability density of finding a particle within a specified region of space is a key ingredient of the standard framework of quantum mechanics, thereby implying that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is inherently epistemological. On the other hand, the possibility of an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics by interpreting |ψ|2 as the probability density of a particle being actually present within a specified region was first suggested by de Broglie [1]. Later, Bohm [2-4] developed the details of such an ontological model of quantum mechanics by using the notion of an observer-independent spacetime trajectory of an individual particle T&F Cat # K11224, Chapter 8, Page 114, 15-9-2010 that is determined by its wave function through an equation of motion which is formulated in a way consistent with the Schrödinger time evolution. Bohm’s model, thus, explicitly refuted the counterarguments (such as those put forward by Pauli [5] and von Neumann [6]) that claimed to have ruled out the formulation of such a model. Subsequently, much work has been done on various aspects of the Bohmian model [7-10]. That such a model is not unique has been elaborately discussed [11,12] while different versions of the ontological model of quantum mechanics have been proposed [13-21].
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".