The de Broglie-Bohm “pilot-wave” theory replaces the paradoxical wave-particle duality of ordinary quantum theory with a more mundane and literal kind of duality: each individual photon or electron comprises a quantum wave (evolving in accordance with the usual quantum mechanical wave equation) and a particle that, under the influence of the wave, traces out a definite trajectory. The definite particle trajectory allows the theory to account for the results of experiments without the usual recourse to additional dynamical axioms about measurements. Instead, one need simply assume that particle detectors click when particles arrive at them. This alternative understanding of quantum phenomena is illustrated here for two elementary textbook examples of one-dimensional scattering and tunneling. We introduce a novel approach to reconcile standard textbook calculations (made using unphysical plane-wave states) with the need to treat such phenomena in terms of normalizable wave packets. This approach allows for a simple but illuminating analysis of the pilot-wave theory's particle trajectories and an explicit demonstration of the equivalence of the pilot-wave theory predictions with those of ordinary quantum theory.

1.
An English translation of Louis de Broglie's 1927 pilot-wave theory can be found in
G.
Bacciagalluppi
and
A.
Valentini
,
Quantum Theory at the Crossroads
(
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
,
2009
). David Bohm's 1952 re-discovery of the theory is presented in “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in terms of Hidden Variables, I and II,” Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952). A more contemporary overview, with further references, can be found online at <plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm>.
2.
J. S.
Bell
, “
Beables for Quantum Field Theory
” (
1984
) in
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed. (
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
,
2004
).
3.
See, for example,
R. G.
Newton
,
Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles
, 2nd ed. (
Springer
,
Berlin/Heidelberg/New York
,
1982
);
M.
Reed
and
B.
Simon
,
Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics III: Scattering Theory
(
Academic Press
,
San Diego
,
1979
).
4.
J. S.
Bell
, “
On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox
,” Phys.
1
,
195
200
(
1964
). Reprinted in Bell, 2004, in
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed. For a contemporary systematic review of Bell's Theorem, see S. Goldstein, T. Norsen, D. Tausk, and N. Zanghi, “Bell's Theorem” online at <www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem>.
5.
D.
Dürr
,
S.
Goldstein
, and
N.
Zanghi
, “
Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty
,”
J. Stat. Phys.
67
,
843
907
(
1992
).
6.
M. D.
Towler
,
N. J.
Russell
, and
A.
Valentini
, “
Time scales for dynamical relaxation to the Born rule
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
468
,
990
1013
(
2012
).
7.
J. S.
Townsend
,
Quantum Physics: A Fundamental Approach to Modern Physics
(
University Science Books
,
Sausalito, CA
,
2010
).
8.
D. J.
Griffiths
,
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
(
Prentice-Hall
,
New Jersey
,
1995
), p.
58
.
9.
R.
Shankar
,
Principles of Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed. (
Springer
,
New York
,
1994
).
10.
C.
Dewdney
and
B. J.
Hiley
, “
A quantum potential description of one-dimensional time-dependent scattering from square barriers and square wells
,”
Found. Phys.
12
,
27
48
(
1982
).
11.
D.
Bohm
and
B. J.
Hiley
,
The Undivided Universe
(
Routledge
,
London and New York
,
1993
), pp.
73
78
.
12.
P.
Holland
,
The Quantum Theory of Motion
(
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
,
1993
), pp.
198
203
(and references therein).
13.
For a rather different (alternative) approach to scattering that also uses the terminology “plane-wave packet” see Stuart
C.
Althorpe
, “
General time-dependent formulation of quantum scattering theory
,”
Phys. Rev. A
69
,
042702
1
(
2004
).
14.
S.
Wuttiprom
,
M. D.
Sharma
,
I. D.
Johnston
,
R.
Chitaree
, and
C.
Soankwan
, “
Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
31
,
631
654
(
2009
).
15.
C.
Baily
and
N. D.
Finkelstein
, “
Refined characterization of student perspectives on quantum physics
,”
PRST-PER
6
,
020113
1
(
2010
).
16.
J. S.
Bell
, “
Six possible worlds of quantum mechanics
,”
1986
, reprinted in Bell, 2004, in
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed. (Note: ellipsis in original.)
17.
J. S.
Bell
, “
On the impossible pilot wave
,”
1982
, reprinted in Bell, 2004, in
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed.
18.
Bell's paper, “Six Possible Worlds of Quantum Mechanics,” op. cit., reviews the relevant phenomena of single-particle interference and then surveys six different extant interpretations. It is an extremely accessible introduction to the nature (and existence) of the controversies, and I have often used it as the basis for a one-class-period discussion in a sophomore-level modern physics course. At a slightly more technical level, Sheldon Goldstein's two-part Physics Today article [March, 1998, pp. 42–46 and April, 1998, pp. 38–42] gives an extremely clear presentation of three attempts to formulate a “Quantum Theory Without Observers” and an illuminating explanation of why such a thing should be desirable in the first place. For students who want to explore foundational issues (EPR, Bell, etc.) and their emerging applications (quantum cryptography, computation, etc.) in more depth, I would recommend GianCarlo Ghirardi's lucid book, Sneaking a Look at God's Cards, Revised Edition, Gerald Malsbary, trans. (Princeton U.P., 2005).
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.