Silicone oil droplets provide a physical realization of pilot wave theories
The standard theory of quantum mechanics leaves a bit to be desired. As Richard Feynman put it, “I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics.” This is because observations of experiments have led us to a theory that contradicts common sense. The wave function contains all the information that is knowable about a particle, yet it can only be used to calculate probabilities of where a particle will likely turn up. It can’t give us an actual account of where the particle went or where it will be at some later time.
Some have suggested that this theory is incomplete. Maybe something is going on beneath the radar of standard quantum theory and somehow producing the appearance of randomness and uncertainty without actually being random or uncertain. Theories of this sort are called hidden variable theories because they propose entities that aren’t observable. One such theory is pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie, but later developed by Bohm. The idea here is that a particle oscillates, creating a wave. It then interacts with the wave and this complex interaction determines its motion.
In this video, physics educator Derek Muller uses silicone oil droplets to depict what the quantum world may look like, at least according to one interpretation of quantum mechanics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
References:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
http://eventbeat.org/is-this-what-quantum-mechanics-looks-like/
#quantummechanics #physics #wavetheory #science
Questa ipotesi è molto vicina alla realtà che condivido:
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------
immaginate una pallina di ferro che cade da una altezza h su una bacinella piena di acqua, la pallina affonda ma dalla superficie dell'acqua si innalza un'onda, questa onda non è la classica onda simmetrica (sinusoidale) ma è un'onda allungata. Se fermiamo il fotogramma, possiamo vedere che sembra una particella (acqua concentrata; il picco) ma in realtà sappiamo benissimo che è un'onda.
---------------------------------------------
Il picco è una curva a campana simile alla curva di Gausshttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xVOfwU_Pm07yhQGCEgx9IOcCAfK_TfxdXHFxd54_qOG4g7B94DQO8dmg1MHc5KRr-FcPlhT5hF2nxQ=s0
ReplyDeletePossiamo quindi a ragione interpretare le particelle come onde asimmetriche stazionarie. E giustificare così la loro bivalenza onda-particella
ReplyDeleteQuite a fun model to tame a mystery with. BTW, is it true that prepositions aren't what sentences should end on?
ReplyDeleteNope...that's a myth since I know.
ReplyDeleteyoutube.com - Pilot wave dynamics of walking droplets; Cal Poly SLO Physics
ReplyDeleteyoutube.com - Shedding light on pilot wave phenomena
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic highly intelligent, and intellectual acumen, are valid assumptions, but only the scientific method can have the last word, and give us a right ToE.
ReplyDeleteVincenzo Sicari I've long reneged on the expectation of a ToE in favor of a minimal credo: omniscience is impossible. I believe the thirst for "solving the unification problem" is a side effect of an elementary physics education that biases the understanding of the relationship of physics models to their objects by feeding students with problems concocted to have easy-to-find solutions for years.
ReplyDeleteJames Of course, macroscopic models do not show how the world works at the quantum level. It's just a kind of simulation.
ReplyDeleteBut Bohm's theory offers an alternative vision of quantum reality that is more deterministic. Physicists who be doing this, they believe that it is mathematically correct. As far as I know it has not been ruled out experimentally. So problem is open…
I think so Boris Borcic it is impossible for a human mind, but it is not impossible for a higher intelligence. We just hope that, that intelligence is the result of human intelligence! I very much agree, a simple example: mathematicians study the polynomials and always solve the 2nd degree equations, but no one solve higher-order equations on the 4th if we can not solve this, imagine if we can solve equations of degree n , therefore causes power to your words.
ReplyDeleteVincenzo Sicari in my case it is a credo, an assumption by fiat, constraining any intelligence. If you want to put it that way, I believe in a supernatural power that makes it impossible for any intelligence to know everything (which is not the same thing as saying there exists anything in particular that's impossible to know). On another hand, I admit it's possible to encode that idea by postulating a fictional unique omniscient to which no real being can compare.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not the interesting side of it, the interesting side of it is that it implies that boundaries of the state of knowledge, whatever the latter happens to be, must exist at any time.
Horizons have contingent location but necessary existence.
Now remember Ockham's dictum, don't unnecessarily multiply entities in explanations, and here we have just concluded to the necessity of a form of entities, those forming the boundary of states of knowledge, horizons, biases, blind sides, mistakes.
So the question becomes, how far can we go with the idea that horizons and analogues are not just necessary but are the stuff the universe is made of? In case of success we'd explain the universe while adding no sort of entities outside ones we'd already concluded were necessary (because of my simple credo).
It's salient BTW that Ethan Siegel just had an article in SciAm having our universe pop up as the event horizon of a higher-dimensional black hole collapse.
Boris Borcic In my opinion, you create overly complicated structures of thought. Incompatible with Occam's razor.
ReplyDeleteFrom cybernetics we know that no one system can understand and describe himself. Mathematicians also proved that mathematics will not be able to prove their correctness. In both cases one need a system of higher order. Some kind of metasystem – containing a system to be analyzed. But the need for such a being does not imply that it exists. Postulating supernatural beings is unnecessary and illogical for me.
Then we know that humans, being part of the Universe, will never get to know or understand him. Even the whole universe, whatever it is, could not understand himself…
Mariusz Rozpędek Of course if you apply Occam's razor over the effort for yourself to grok how it's put, nothing can beat how you put it yourself; but this just shows you don't understand what you are talking about. The next time you +call me over something I said to address nothing of what I said, I'll block you. If you can't help yourself, the simple way to escape this tragic fate is to not +call me in vain before it like that.
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic ...So the question becomes, how far can we go with the idea that horizons and analogues are not just necessary but are the stuff the universe is made of?...
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------
The horizons are like Russian dolls, unveiled one, it turns out that it remains to discover a larger (for example, the multiverse), horizons are the limits that the mind imposes, but the universe has been able to devise a sheer intelligence from energy (energy = little conscience, low order), I think the error, if of error can talk about is to see the individual components of the system, to overcome this constraint I always use an example: an hourglass folded so that the extreme parties are fused together, then you have no need of a border, nor of a beginning, nor end of it, but we are part of a unique design, what you seek is within us, but being quarks, we can not understand the final form; a star, galaxy clusters, the clusters multiverse etc .. etc ..
Boris Borcic I ask for forgiveness – maybe I did not understand something. English is not my native language. It was not my intention to offend anyone.
ReplyDeleteIn my comment I made reference to the initial portion of your text:
"I believe in a supernatural power that makes it impossible for any intelligence to know everything (which is not the same thing as saying there exists anything in particular that's impossible to know). On another hand, I admit it's possible to encode that idea by postulating a fictional unique omniscient to which no real being can compare."
Can you, please, explain me – in other words – what does mean for you sentence: " l believe in a supernatural power"? And what did you mean when "postulating a fictional unique omniscient"?
Thanks in advance…
Vincenzo Sicari "My" main proposal above is to shift focus from prioritized attention to what is known or could be as is usual, to prioritize instead attention on how we fail to know what we don't know. "Horizons" is a generic term borrowing from the metaphor or synecdoche "seeing is knowing", but when you go to catalogue the ways knowledge or "vision" may escape us, there is a wide diversity of patterns, some quite subtle, some very familiar but not understood as belonging with "horizons".
ReplyDeleteAn example of the former is how we allow our conclusions to depend on the order in which we learn facts, even though logic (that we'd want to obey) doesn't make conclusions depend on the order in which the premises are listed. This is not something we are trained hard to control, since in practice there's never an alternate self having gone through the list of premises in another order than we did, to tell us of a divergent conclusion.
Another example is inadvertent mutual misunderstandings. If you assume such an occurrence, what's the case is by assumption not common knowledge, ie is not known.
Some forms of "horizons" are the topic of very active enquiry under the name of cognitive biases. If something biases your understanding, it's something that drives you belief construction away from the accurate representation of reality, away from being knowledge.
But none of this, I'd have to admit, resembles progress on the front of having "what the universe is made of" implemented as "horizons and analogues", although I did mention that Ethan Siegel's recent portrait of the Big Bang as the collapse of a higher-dimensional black hole, falls into this general category.
More generally for this I'd look at quantum mechanics. What the Copenhagen school calls "Collapse of the wavefunction" suspiciously resembles what we do when we uncover a mistake.
Mariusz Rozpędek Ok. Well, English isn't my native language either, and I must admit to not managing the large vocabulary of rare words common to my native French in an audience-conscious way (to astutely exhibit what's in fact likely not the worst way I mistreat my readers).
ReplyDeleteAs to your prompting, well, first off the sentence you quote isn't complete, it starts with If you want to put it that way, and that wasn't at all gratuitous. An ingredient of that particular comment was to emphasize what in my previous comment to Vincenzo Sicari I had only represented via the choice of a single word, "credo", in the flow of the sentence, a word of which he appeared not to have caught the intention as he proposed like an enrichment the existence of "superior intelligences" that would contradict the credo.
The passage you ask to be explained postulates moderate tolerance to allusion to supernatural agency such as that of "the" supreme being, this via narrative involvement of properties or actions of the latter which are carefully cherry-picked to be benign and reduce to meaningful figures of speech when you properly understand "supernatural" to describe what doesn't happen in the world when a narrative affirms something that's literally impossible.
So my "if you want to put it that way, bla bla (something like an act of God behind it all)" was a way to shorthand that despite taking issue with Vincenzo's proposal (under the name of "superior intelligence") of something like the intelligence of God (because that contradicted the letter of my declared credo), my objection shouldn't be mistaken for a policy of eradicating from language all that can be construed as an allusion to God or the supernatural.
Further in the paragraph you quote, there's allusion to how the computer science concept of Sentinel Values can in the context of my credo ("omniscience is impossible") apply to paradoxically replace that credo by the equivalent figure of a unique omniscient to which no real being is comparable.
Boris Borcic ...although I did mention that Ethan Siegel's recent portrait of the Big Bang as the collapse of a higher-dimensional black hole...
ReplyDelete---------------------------
That is an idea that I share, for the truth my idea is more sophisticated, I believe in the exchange of energy between two Black Holes (oscillations), it is obviously we're not talking about Black Holes, but a Worm Hole. The oscillations have a arrow of time, and space arrow (expansion). You're right when you say that with no index, we can not reconstruct the correct information, but if the number of bits is a finite number then the number of possible combinations, though large will be finished and we can then talk about cycles. For example: perhaps the same molecule of water has found its place in different cells of your body over the course of your years.
...What the Copenhagen school calls "Collapse of the wavefunction"...
Mine is a deterministic view, the explanation I can give is that if I want to measure a wet cement wall, use a wooden meter, if I want to measure the jam using a laser beam, of course if I measure the wet cement with a meter made of fresh cement or jam with a jam meter, it seems clear that proud every time the measure. When trying to measure quantum phenomena the difference between the light and that which is being investigated is almost non-existent!
Vincenzo Sicari As I get it, Siegel's (maybe's not Siegel's should verify it's not, see below) recent proposal does not involve seeing the BB as the white hole end of a wormhole, but as an analogue to the CFT "2D" end of AdS/CFT "holography" with all dimensions bumped up so that it's actually our 3D at the CFT side and the AdS side is from a higher-dimensional universe. This is an alternate, original way to describe the big bang as the other side of (some sort of) black hole, that serves to popularize the irresistible beauty of AdS/CFT to physicists... but that also fits my idea to have the universe "made of horizon", since the CFT side of AdS/CFT is described to happen on the horizon of a black hole.
ReplyDelete---
Edit, it would seem I mistook two items for aliases,It's not Siegel. Here is an item proposing this idea, and not quite so recent as I believed.
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/black-hole-birth-universe
Boris Borcic In fact now the argument has taken a completely different direction, and I have to say, yes the holographic hypothesis is fascinating, I like it, but obviously I do not share it. When 4 dimensions become 3 of course we are talking about spatial dimensions. Our universe according to Albert Einstein have 4 dimensions: 3 spatial dimensions and one time. I have found three dimensions for space, 3 dimensions for time, 3 dimensions for energy. In this way I can explain the behavior of quarks (Leonard Susskind) without resorting to strings, I can do it with a little modification to Special Relativity. The entanglement: if 2 fingers pinches a violin string, the two parts separate from the 2 fingers begin to vibrate in sync (resonance), in the case of the entanglement, 2 laser beams always have a common point (2 fingers). Anti de Sitter? No grazie, Il est déjà assez difficile d'accepter un temps en 3 dimensions, sans ressentir le besoin de plus de tracas avec l'holographie😊Tnk for this interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteJames Considers a laser beam, it can only offend on the direction of motion, yet if you consider only a single quantum of light should not be any difference in the directions. In other words the light, you must consider exactly like the mass, in fact they are both made of the same substance: E = mc2.
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------
Special Relativity:
If an object is moving in the direction of the x-direction at relativistic speeds, the time for an observer undergoes expansion, but the object is not moved along the y direction, then I ask you the time dilatation to those who must obey? To x, to y, or to z?
-------------------------------------------------
Of course I have scientific proof of my statements, but here I just wanted to give an example understandable to anyone who reads
As far as I remember energy is a scalar – non dimensional entity…
ReplyDeleteI instead remember that the orbits of the planets are perfect circles. I also remember that the Earth is flat! Also the Sun round around. And the sky is a simple surface that wraps around the Earth at a certain height. In recent times I should say that I remember Sir. Isaac Newton true. All of these stamements was true deny them was equivalent to be submitted to media lynching.
ReplyDeleteJames AFAIK, quanta was a term introduced with the explanation of the photo-electric effect precisely to denote the values of energy brought or carried away by a photon.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
ReplyDelete... For example, a photon is ...
Quanta (sing. quantum) was terminology introduced by Planck in 1901 to explain black body radiation and indeed initially denoted the energy carried by photons upon emission or absorption by matter. The term later on generalized to cover more than that but not enough IMHO to justify pedantically rectifying someone calling photons quanta as if that wasn't precisely the original meaning of the word.
ReplyDelete...and in 1905 Einstein borrowed Planck's concept to explain the photoelectric effect in a landmark article.