 at variance with the detected, actual way though the interferometer” (1263). This last clause identifies the detected path with the actual path traveled by the test particle. This is their (implicit) assumption that particle detectors would be reliable (in a perfectly straightforward way) on the delayed-choice interference experiments that they discuss. ESSW conclude, “Irrespective of what can be said in addition, we think that we have done a useful job in demonstrating just how artificial the Bohm trajectories can be” (1264).

Again, ESSW’s claim is not that Bohm’s theory makes the wrong empirical predictions nor it is that the theory is somehow logically inconsistent; rather, they argue (on the implicit assumption that our particle detectors reliably tell us where particles are) that Bohm’s theory makes the wrong predictions for the actual motions of particles—that the predicted particle trajectories are “artificial,” “metaphysical,” and, at best, “implausible.”

While I agree with DFGZ that surreal trajectories are not something that a proponent of Bohm’s theory should worry about, the full story is a bit more involved than the sketch given in their comment on ESSW’s paper. In order to get everything straight, let’s return to Bell’s original analysis of the delayed-choice interference experiment in the context of Bohm’s theory.

Bell’s analysis of the delayed-choice interference experiment provides a good first step in explaining why conservation-of-momentum-violating “surreal” trajectories do not pose a problem for Bohm’s theory. While Bohm’s theory does indeed predict that momentum (in the usual sense) is not conserved in experiments like that described above, Bell explained why one would never detect violations of the conservation of momentum. The short story is this: while the [ *actual*]{} momentum (mass times particle velocity) is typically not conserved in Bohm’s theory, the [*measured*]{} momentum (as expressed by the results of what one would ordinarily take to be momentum measurements) is always conserved.

In order to detect a momentum-violating bounce in an experiment like that described above, one would have to perform [*two*]{} measurements: one to show which path the particle travels, ($A$ or $B$) and another to show where the particle ends up ($A'$ or $B'$). One might then try to show that a particle that travels path $A$, say
at variance with the detected, actual way though the interferometer ” (1263). This last article identify the detected path with the actual way traveled by the examination particle. This is their (implicit) assumption that atom detector would be reliable (in a perfectly straightforward way) on the check - choice interference experiment that they discourse. ESSW conclude, “ Irrespective of what can be said in addition, we think that we have act a useful job in demonstrating barely how artificial the Bohm trajectories can be ” (1264). 

 Again, ESSW ’s claim is not that Bohm ’s theory construct the wrong empirical predictions nor it is that the theory is somehow logically inconsistent; preferably, they argue (on the implicit assumption that our particle detectors reliably tell us where particles are) that Bohm ’s theory makes the wrong predictions for the actual motions of particles — that the predicted particle trajectories are “ artificial, ” “ metaphysical, ” and, at best, “ implausible. ” 

 While I match with DFGZ that surreal trajectories are not something that a advocate of Bohm ’s hypothesis should worry about, the full story is a bit more byzantine than the sketch give in their comment on ESSW ’s paper. In holy order to get everything straight, let ’s return to Bell ’s original psychoanalysis of the delayed - choice interference experiment in the context of Bohm ’s theory. 

 Bell ’s analysis of the delayed - choice intervention experiment provides a good first step in explaining why conservation - of - momentum - rape “ surreal ” trajectories do not pose a problem for Bohm ’s theory. While Bohm ’s theory does indeed predict that momentum (in the usual common sense) is not conserved in experiments like that described above, Bell explained why one would never detect violations of the conservation of momentum. The inadequate story is this: while the [ * actual * ] { } momentum (batch times atom velocity) is typically not conserved in Bohm ’s hypothesis, the [ * measured * ] { } momentum (as expressed by the results of what one would ordinarily take to be momentum measurement) is always conserved. 

 In order to detect a momentum - violating leap in an experiment like that described above, one would have to perform [ * two * ] { } measurements: one to prove which path the particle travels, ($ A$ or $ B$) and another to show where the atom ends up ($ A'$ or $ B'$). One might then try to show that a particle that travels path $ A$, say
 at variance with the detecued, actual way though thx interrerometef” (1263). This last clause identifixs tye deuvcted path with the aztual patj travelwd bb the test partirme. This is thslr (im'lmcit) assumption that parthcle detectors wuupd be reliable (in a perfectly straidhtforwsrf way) on the dglayec-shoidv lnterference experiments that thsy disclss. ESSW conclude, “Irrespective of what can he swid in addition, we think that we rqve done a ureful job pu demonstrajing just how artificial the Boho tralectories cqn be” (1264).

Dgain, ESSW’s claii is not thab Bohm’s theory makes the wrokg em'irixal predictions nor iv is that the theory is somehmw logically inconsusrent; tathes, thdt afgut (oi tge imppicmt assumptikn that our particle detectors rqoiably tell ua wherq [articles are) that Bohm’s theory makes tve srong predictions for tye actual motions of karticles—trat the predicted particle trajectories are “artifhcial,” “oetcimysizql,” and, at best, “implausible.”

While I agree with DFDA uhan surreal trajectjries are npt spiething that x proponeht of Bohm’s theory should worrt about, tre fill story is a bit more invilved than tke wketch given in thzir comment un EXSW’s laper. In order to get ererythjng straighh, let’s refjrn to Bell’s orieinsl analysis of the delayed-chjice intecfereuce expefimemt in ehe contexh of Nmhm’s theory.

Bell’s ajalysns of the delayfd-choice interference experimenv provides a bomd xirst stzp in cxplaining why sonservation-of-komentui-violxting “surrval” trajertories do njt pose a protpem for Bohm’v theory. Whioe Bihm’s thdury does indeec predict that momebtum (in the usual xenrs) is not conserrtd un experiments kikd tran dxscrifad above, Beln exolakmed wfy one woulb vevet detect violations mf tge conservation of mjmentum. Jhe short story is thix: while the [ *actuap*]{} momxntum (oass yimgs particle velocity) is typicalmy not cojsevved in Bohm’s theiry, the [*measbred*]{} momentum (as expressed by the resultw of what one woule ordinarily take tp be momentuk meafurements) is always conserved.

Un order to detecu a momentum-violating bkunce hn an experiment like that described above, one would have to perform [*two*]{} measueements: one to shos whoch pdtk tke partycle vravels, ($A$ or $B$) anc another to show where the parvicle ends u' ($A'$ or $B'$). One might then try tp rhow that a pxrticle that travels patg $A$, say
at variance with the detected, actual way interferometer” This last identifies the detected traveled the test particle. is their (implicit) that particle detectors would be reliable a perfectly straightforward way) on the delayed-choice interference experiments that they discuss. ESSW “Irrespective of what can be said in addition, we think that we have a job demonstrating how artificial the Bohm trajectories can be” (1264). Again, ESSW’s claim is not that Bohm’s theory the wrong empirical predictions nor it is that theory is somehow logically rather, they argue (on the assumption our particle reliably us particles are) that theory makes the wrong predictions for the actual motions of particles—that the predicted particle trajectories are “artificial,” and, at While I with that trajectories are not a proponent of Bohm’s theory should full story is a bit more involved than sketch given their comment on ESSW’s paper. In to get everything straight, let’s return to Bell’s analysis of the delayed-choice interference experiment in the context of Bohm’s theory. Bell’s analysis of interference experiment provides a first step in why “surreal” do pose a for Bohm’s theory. While Bohm’s theory does indeed predict that momentum the usual sense) is not conserved in experiments like that Bell why one would detect violations of the of The short story is the *actual*]{} particle is not conserved in Bohm’s the [*measured*]{} momentum (as expressed the results of what be momentum measurements) is always conserved. In order detect a momentum-violating bounce in an experiment that described above, one would have to perform [*two*]{} measurements: one to which path travels, ($A$ or $B$) and another to show the particle ends up or $B'$). One might then try to show that particle travels path say
 at variance with the detected, Actual way tHough The IntErFeroMeteR” (1263). This last clausE IdenTifies the detected path wIth thE aCTual PAtH travEled by tHE tEST paRtIcLe. THiS Is Their (ImpLicit) asSumption thAt pArTicle detectoRS wOuld be reliAblE (in a perfectlY stRaightFoRwaRD way) oN thE delaYed-choICe inteRference eXpERimentS That theY DIsCuss. eSSW conclude, “IrresPEcTIve of what can be Said in AdDItION, we ThiNk that we haVe Done a USeful joB In DEMOnsTRating just how Artificial tHE BoHm trajEcTorIEs can bE” (1264).

AgaiN, EssW’s Claim is not tHat BOhm’s theorY makes THe wrong EMpiricaL prediCtiOns Nor iT Is ThAt tHe THeoRY iS soMEhoW logicalLy InConsiStenT; RATHer, tHey ArguE (on thE implicit assuMptIon tHAt oUr parTicle DeteCtOrs reLiably Tell uS wHere particles arE) thaT Bohm’s theOry MaKes ThE wronG PredicTioNs fOr the acTual motIOns Of PARTiCles—that the predictEd PARtIcle trajEctoriES aRe “ARtificiaL,” “mEtaPhysICAl,” and, At beST, “iMplausibLe.”

WhilE i aGrEe with DfGz that sUrReaL trAjectORies Are not SomethinG that A Proponent of BohM’S theory should WOrRY AbOUt, thE fuLl story is a bIt moRE invOlveD ThAn tHE sketCh givEn IN tHEir comment on ESSW’s paPeR. In ordEr to gEt everything sTraight, let’S RETurn to BeLl’s oRIgINal analysis of tHe delAyed-choice INterfereNce exPeriment In the contEXT of Bohm’s TheOry.

belL’s aNALySis of the delayED-ChoiCe InterfeRenCe experImeNt pRovIdeS a Good first Step in exPlAiNiNg Why ConseRVation-of-MoMenTuM-viOlatiNG “surreAl” traJectOrIeS Do nOt pose a PRoBLEm foR BOhM’s thEorY. WHile BOhm’s THeoRy does iNdeed predIct THat mOmEnTum (in thE usual sense) is NoT conserved In ExpErimenTS Like that Described above, Bell explaINed why oNe wOuld nEver Detect vioLatIons of The COnservAtion oF momeNtUm. THE Short STOrY is ThIs: while the [ *ACTuaL*]{} momeNtUm (maSs times Particle velocity) is TYpiCally not conseRveD in BOHM’s TheORy, THe [*mEaSUreD*]{} MOmentum (as expresSed by the reSuLTs Of what one wOUld OrDinarilY take to Be momENtum meaSurements) Is always cOnServED.

in oRder to deteCt a momenTum-violatINg bouNCe In an eXpeRiment LiKe tHat deScribeD AboVe, one Would hAvE to perForm [*tWo*]{} MeasuremEnts: one to show which path tHe partIcle tRavEls, ($A$ or $B$) anD anOTheR to show whEre tHe particle EndS up ($a'$ or $B'$). ONe mIGht thEn trY To ShoW That a PartICle that trAVeLs pATH $A$, Say
 at variance with the dete cted, actu al wa y t hou gh  the  int erferometer” ( 1 263) . This last clause ide ntifi es thed et ected  path w i th t heac tu alpa t htrave led  by the  test part icl e.  This is the i r(implicit)  as sumption tha t p articl edet e ctors  wo uld b e reli a ble (i n a perfe ct l y stra i ghtforw a r dway)  on the delayed-c h oi c e interference  exper im e nt s tha t t hey discus s.  ESSW conclud e ,“ I r res p ective of wha t can be sa i d i n addi ti on, we thi nk th at wehave done a  use ful job i n demo n stratin g  just h ow art ifi cia l th e  B oh m t ra j ect o ri esc anbe” (126 4) .
Agai n, E S S W ’ s cl aim  isnot t hat Bohm’s th eor y ma k esthe w rongempi ri cal p redict ionsno r it is that th e th eory is s ome ho w l og icall y  incon sis ten t; rath er, the y  ar gu e ( on  the implicit assu mp t i on  that ou r part i cl ed etectors  r eli ably t ell u s wh e re  particl es are )  t ha t Bohm’ stheory  m ake s t he wr o ng p redict ions for  thea ctual motionso f particles—t h at t he pred ict ed particle  tra j ecto ries ar e “ a rtifi cial, ”“ me t aphysical,” and, at  b est, “ impla usible.”

Whi le I agree w i th DFGZthat su r real trajector ies a re not som e thing th at aproponen t of Bohm ’ s  theorysho uld  wo rry a bo ut, the fulls t oryis  a bitmor e invol ved  th anthe  s ketch giv en in th ei rco mm ent  on E S SW’s pap er . I nord er to get ev eryth ingst ra i ght , let’s re t u rn t oBe ll’s  or ig inalanal y sis  of the  delayed- cho i ce i nt er ference  experiment i nthe contex tofBohm’s t heory.
Bell’s analysis of thed elayed- cho ice i nter ference e xpe riment  pr o videsa good  firs tste p in ex p l ai nin gwhy conser v a tio n-of- mo ment um-viol ating “surreal” tr a jec tories do not  po se a p ro ble m  f o r B oh m ’st h eory. While Boh m’s theory  d o es  indeed pr e dic tthat mo mentum(in t h e usual  sense) i s not con se rved i n e xperiments  like th at descri b ed ab o ve , Bel l e xplain ed  wh y one  would nev er de tect v io lation s ofth e conser vation of momentum. The  short  stor y i s this: w hil e  th e [ *actu al*] {} momentu m ( mas s tim esp artic le v e lo cit y ) istypi c ally notc on ser v e din Bohm’s t h e o ry,  the[*m e asured *]{}  momentum (as exp r essed by the r esul t s  of  wh a t on ewould ordinari lyta k e  to be m om entum measu rements)  i s  alwa ys con served .

In o r d er to det ecta m omentum-v iol at i ng boun ce  i n  an ex peri me nt lik e that desc r i bed above, one w ouldh a ve to per form[* two*]{} meas urements:one to show  which  pat h the  partic le  trave ls,  ( $A$ or $B$ )  and anot her t o showwh erethe  parti clee n ds up  ($A '$  or  $B'$). O n e  m i gh tt hen  try  to s ho w th at a part i cle that  tr a vels pa th  $A $ ,  say
 at_variance with_the detected, actual way_though the_interferometer”_(1263). This_last_clause identifies the_detected path with_the actual path traveled_by the test_particle._This is their (implicit) assumption that particle detectors would be reliable (in a perfectly_straightforward_way) on_the_delayed-choice_interference experiments that they discuss._ESSW conclude, “Irrespective of what_can be_said in addition, we think that we have_done_a useful job_in demonstrating just how artificial the Bohm trajectories can_be” (1264).

Again, ESSW’s claim is not_that Bohm’s theory_makes_the_wrong empirical predictions nor_it is that the theory is_somehow logically inconsistent; rather, they argue_(on the implicit assumption that our particle_detectors reliably tell us where particles_are) that Bohm’s theory makes_the wrong_predictions for the actual motions_of particles—that the_predicted particle_trajectories are “artificial,”_“metaphysical,” and, at best, “implausible.”

While I_agree with DFGZ_that surreal trajectories are not something_that_a proponent of_Bohm’s_theory_should worry_about, the full_story_is a_bit_more involved than the sketch given_in_their comment on ESSW’s paper. In order_to get everything straight,_let’s_return to Bell’s original_analysis of the delayed-choice interference_experiment in the context of Bohm’s_theory.

Bell’s analysis_of the_delayed-choice interference experiment provides a good first step in explaining why_conservation-of-momentum-violating “surreal” trajectories do not pose_a problem for Bohm’s_theory. While_Bohm’s_theory does indeed_predict_that momentum_(in the usual sense) is not conserved_in experiments_like that described above, Bell explained_why one would never_detect_violations of the conservation of momentum._The short story is this: while_the [ *actual*]{} momentum (mass_times_particle_velocity) is typically not conserved_in Bohm’s theory, the [*measured*]{} momentum_(as expressed by_the results of what one would ordinarily_take_to be momentum measurements) is always_conserved.

In_order to detect a momentum-violating bounce_in_an_experiment like that described above,_one would have to perform [*two*]{}_measurements: one to show which path the particle travels,_($A$ or $B$)_and another to show where_the_particle_ends up ($A'$ or $B'$). One might then try to_show that_a particle that_travels path $A$, say