>>10220329>>10219551It refers to the 1992 paper
http://zfn.mpdl.mpg.de/data/Reihe_A/47/ZNA-1992-47a-1175.pdf abbreviated ESSW, which explained Bohmian mechanics quite clearly.The main point of ESSW was that the Bohmian trajectories aren't directly seen but may be reconstructed after the measurement, and it's easy to design situations in which the reconstructed trajectory is different than the trajectory that is actually being measured. So the Bohmian trajectory is in no way "realistic": it is actually "surrealistic", using their playful jargon, because it may be seen to macroscopically deviate from the trajectory that was actually measured.
This 2016 paper wrote
>However, this surreal behavior is merely the flip side of the nonlocality we also demonstrated.
But the ESSW paper and the serious observations in it don't depend on any "nonlocality" whatsoever. The word doesn't appear in the ESSW paper at all (the highly problematic term "weak measurement" doesn't appear there, either). Two trajectories either agree or disagree. And yes, they disagree. That's the problem ESSW found and Mahler et al. confirmed.
The nonlocality is needed in Bohmian mechanics to have a chance to reproduce at least something. But it is not needed in quantum mechanics. Nonlocality and the surrealism of the trajectories, these two problems of Bohmian mechanics don't cancel :))
So TLDR: Mahler and 6 co-authors of the Science Magazine article have performed the experiment and the expectations by ESSW were confirmed. The experiments unequivocally support Copenhagen interpretation and disagree with the "alternatives". In particular, it's shown that the "Bohmian trajectory" has nothing whatever to do with the reality. However the author played some verbal trick and the popsci crowd misread it as this experiment brings "new support" for Bohmian theory (but really there has never been any old support, let alone new one)
>>10220494is right
