{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02905701754385965, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018092105263157895, 'mean_word_length': 4.9640522875816995, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Delayed-choice experiments and the Bohm approach

The delayed-choice experiments of the type introduced by Wheeler and extended by Englert, Scully, Süssmann and Walther (ESSW) (1992 Z. Naturf. a 47 1175–86), and others, have formed a rich area for investigating the puzzling behaviour of particles undergoing quantum interference. The surprise provided by the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that ‘no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon’, a radical explanation which implied that ‘the past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present’. However Bohm et al (1985 Nature 315 294–97) have shown that the Bohm interpretation (BI) gives a straightforward account of the behaviour of the particle without resorting to such a radical explanation. The subsequent modifications of this experiment led both Aharonov and Vaidman (1996 Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal ed J T Cushing, A Fine and S Goldstein (Dordrecht: Kluwer) pp 141–54) and ESSW to conclude that the resulting Bohm-type trajectories in these new situations produce unacceptable properties. For example, if a cavity is placed in one arm of the interferometer, it will be excited by a particle travelling down the other arm. In other words, it is the particle that does not go through the cavity that gives up its energy! If this analysis is correct, this behaviour would be truly bizarre and could only be explained by an extreme non-local transfer of energy that is even stronger than that required in an Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR)-type process. In this paper, we show that this conclusion is not correct and that if the BI is used correctly, it gives a local explanation, which actually corresponds exactly to the standard quantum mechanics explanation offered by ESSW.