Delayed Choice Compatibly with Pilot Wave?

[physicshelp11]

With this new publication in Nature, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html, they have proven that "if one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past."

Do advocates of pilot wave/De-Broglie-Bohm now have to accept that current/future events affect past events?

 

[Tyranosopher]

Good question. My opinion: pilot wave theory have to morph into something more outlandish.

 

[zonde]

With this new publication in Nature, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html, they have proven that "if one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past."

You can't prove anything in science. You can falsify or confirm some theory or hypothesis.
This particular experiment seems to falsify particle-wave duality idea. Particle-wave duality is outdated idea that comes from Bohr's earlier ideas (or maybe misunderstanding of Bohr's earlier ideas).

Do advocates of pilot wave/De-Broglie-Bohm now have to accept that current/future events affect past events?

Particle-wave duality has nothing to do with pilot wave/De-Broglie-Bohm where both particle and a wave is there at all times.

There is an older thread about this experiment:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/delayed-choice-experiment-article-on-science-alert.816900/

 

[Demystifier]

With this new publication in Nature, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html, they have proven that "if one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past."

Do advocates of pilot wave/De-Broglie-Bohm now have to accept that current/future events affect past events?

I cannot find the quoted sentence above at the link above.
Anyway, this quoted sentence, in the form in which it is written, is wrong. A correct version should be something like this:
If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path and that nothing else took both paths, then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past.
Note the added qualification "and that nothing else took both paths". This added qualification makes the statement (and the experiment) compatible with standard Bohmian mechanics. That's because in Bohmian mechanics it is not true that "that nothing else took both paths" (because there is a wave function that took both paths), so the conclusion of the statement does not refer to Bohmian mechanics. In other words, Bohmians do not need to accept that current/future events affect past events.

People with superficial understanding of Bohmian mechanics often forget that Bohmian mechanics is not only about particles. It is about particles and wave functions.

See also the initial post in
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/who-is-puzzled-by-the-delayed-choice.402497/
especially item 7.