Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Hodge: on 3/9/15 at 18:02pm UTC, wrote These posts seem to have stumbling blocks on the suggestion that the...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/4/15 at 12:20pm UTC, wrote Al, I read your reply to my post on your essay thread. I also viewed the...

Al Schneider: on 3/4/15 at 9:22am UTC, wrote QED and Light The impetus for this thread was a suggestion from comments...

Steve Agnew: on 10/24/14 at 18:32pm UTC, wrote Electrons scattered from a thread will behave either ballistically or...

Peter Jackson: on 10/14/14 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote jc, Can theoretical prejudice be dropped completely? I've been trying but...

John Cox: on 10/14/14 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Pete and Steve, PWT itself does not specify what a particle is, rather...

Peter Jackson: on 10/13/14 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote jc, "The Lorentz curve is typically constrained to mass increase with...

Peter Jackson: on 10/13/14 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote jc, "If matter waves exhibit a helical OAM, what is a particle? Let's talk...



FQXi FORUM
June 27, 2019

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 19:42 GMT
Photo: MIT, Dan Harris
In a new article for the Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, John Bush of MIT reviews experimental evidence showing fluid droplets exhibiting quantum-esque features. In particular, walking droplets are being touted as an analog system to investigate quantum pilot-wave theories -- realistic hidden variable theories in which quantum objects are guided by, as the name suggests, waves.

The experiment in question was set up by Yves Couder, Emmanuel Fort, and colleagues at the University of Paris Diderot. Writing for phys.org, Larry Hardesty writes:

"Couder and Fort's system consists of a bath of fluid vibrating at a rate just below the threshold at which waves would start to form on its surface. A droplet of the same fluid is released above the bath; where it strikes the surface, it causes waves to radiate outward. The droplet then begins moving across the bath, propelled by the very waves it creates."

There's more about Couder and Fort's experiment, with videos, in this phys.org story from October 2013.

Natalie Wolchover also provided an excellent account for QUANTA magazine in June 2014. In the article she describes how the how the Paris team used their set-up to demonstrate single and double slit interference, and also showed that the droplets can "tunnel" through barriers and orbit each other in stable "bound states".

Hardesty, for phys.org, quotes Bush: "The key question is whether a real quantum dynamics, of the general form suggested by de Broglie and the walking drops, might underlie quantum statistics," he says. "While undoubtedly complex, it would replace the philosophical vagaries of quantum mechanics with a concrete dynamical theory."

Thank you to John Merryman for suggesting that since the Why Quantum forum has now reached over 1000 posts, it would be a good idea to open a thread dedicated to this topic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 23:25 GMT
Zeeya,

Thanks. This topic may start off slowly, but I suspect it will continue to be a major issue in the field.

It will be hard to propose theories to top multiverses, so the likely momentum will be toward a serious review of the field and many of those issues which have been bubbling under the surface are going to start getting more attention.

The tide will turn. Especially as new generations of physicists are put in the position of choosing sides between a status quo that may be well developed, but with questions about the viability of much the last couple of decades worth of theorizing, versus a different approach which will require devising ever more complex experimental processes.

Regards,

John M

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Oct. 11, 2014 @ 15:29 GMT
All,

This important topic is languishing, so let me throw a little gas on the fire.

The double slit experiment gets a lot of play in Quantum Mechanics, so if we wish to show a classical correspondence we need show an inverse experimental result. Anyone whom has attempted drawing and painting has recognized that in the macro world of diffuse lighting, a similar interference pattern of shadow is commonly found on a vertical surface cast thereon by a slender vertical object, such as a string suspending a weight. Macro world explanations can of course attribute this to the diffuse directional light source, but let's get technical:

Suppose we could get a FQXi experiment on the International Space Station?! The actual apparatus could be quite small, programmable, and relatively inexpensive. The development of experimental protocol would be the more costly part, but could be open group sourced to volunteer participation.

Here is the idea. Use something like spider silk, measurably precise at micrometer cross-section, and stronger than steel. Pull two strands across an adjustable frame opening, movable by programmed actuators like pulse motors, so that distance between them can be changed as well as distance from the source of electron projection. Same with a scintillation counting detection screen. Mount these elements inside a tube with a 'stealth' coating on the interior to reduce interference, then run the experiment in the shadow of the space station when it is in the earth's shadow, in the best vacuum we could hope to achieve. Then compare results of shadows to interference lumination of a typical double slit experiment of the same size of components. Spider silk can be woven into threads that are tough and large enough in cross-section to mimick a micro-machined slit aperture.

It would make good PR for FQXi, too. :-> jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 11, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
jc,

Great plan. I agree the umbra of a shadow is caused by refraction in the surface fine structure layer. Both optical science and astronomy are already there, but you're right that the experimenters mainly just laugh or roll their eyes and stay ahead and away from the rather 'time dilated' and entrenched interpretations of 'theoretical physics'.

I've long campaigned for free access to publicly funded research to bridge that gap. Theorists can then get up to speed distinguish properly between modern science and the 'ancient scientific beliefs' and flights of fancy we currently teach our kids in history and 'physics' lessons.

Is that really unfair?

Best wishes

Peter

PS, Lest it disappear, I just answered your important questions about TZ shocks below.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 11, 2014 @ 18:57 GMT
The double slit experiment and its variants are all manifestations of the amplitude and phase properties of matter waves.

"The double slit experiment gets a lot of play in Quantum Mechanics, so if we wish to show a classical correspondence we need show an inverse experimental result."

However, diffraction is a complex microscopic manifestation of photon interference with itself and is not the best way to demonstrate the nature of quantum entanglement. This is because alignment noise, near field very far field effects, and coherency are all jumbled up together among source, diffractor, and detector.

Diffraction is normally considered a nuisance in spectrosopic analysis...except diffraction gratings are very useful despite their many artifacts. Diffraction artifacts are so complex and numerous and yet so well explained that you can easily end up in very deep rabbit holes.

To show quantum entanglement, interferometry is the key where source, diffractor, and detector are all integrated. This allows the needed control of stability needed to measure changes on the order of 5e-7 m, the wavelength of light. Since interferometry has been and continues to be done on the space shuttle and in satellites and the moon. Occultation incorporates the diffraction of starlight to discern lunar features as well as atmospheres on planets.

In other words, these experiments have been done, are being done, and do contribute useful information about the nature of reality. You proposal will simply be another of the many reaffirmations of SR and QM of course, but that would hardly be surprising. A more useful experiment might be a gravity interferometer at the Lagrange point of earth and moon that shows the interference and diffraction of matter with itself in a gravity potential.

Showing that gravity shows coherence and entanglement would actually be quite useful...or showing that gravity does not show coherence and entanglement.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 15, 2014 @ 23:38 GMT
Anyone with theories about surface tension at the quantum level?

Maybe Eric Reiter will offer some suggestions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 00:24 GMT
Interesting note on that.

Controlling the surface tension with electromagnetism:

""But we discovered that applying a small, positive charge – less than 1 volt – causes an electrochemical reaction that creates an oxide layer on the surface of the metal, dramatically lowering the surface tension from 500 mN/meter to around 2 mN/meter," says Dr. Michael Dickey, an associate professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at NC State and senior author of a paper describing the work. "This change allows the liquid metal to spread out like a pancake, due to gravity."

The researchers also showed that the change in surface tension is reversible. If researchers flip the polarity of the charge from positive to negative, the oxide is eliminated and high surface tension is restored. The surface tension can be tuned between these two extremes by varying the voltage in small steps."

Think how much a computer does with binary code. Could it be that nature is simply polarities?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 00:24 GMT
Well John (and thank you Zeeya),

This is a topic I've been following for some time already, because it fits in pretty explicitly with my physical theory based on the Mandelbrot Set. The Mandelbrot Butterfly figure, which I introduce in my contest video, illustrates how there are areas of nucleation on the other side of each Misiurewicz point, at which there is a pinch-off effect. I expect to go into some detail about this in an upcoming paper with Michel Planat, once I finish up my introductory paper on trends in the Mandelbrot Set.

The area of the Butterfly figure surrounding the circular void about (-1,0i) is populated with discs (nucleation regions) riding in the 'waves' in the surrounding colored-in areas known as the repeller sets. This has a direct analogy in the droplet in a wave formations studied by Couder and Fort. Until I publish, the best way to get a look is in my contest video, or in the companion Music Video "Mandelbrot Butterfly Safari" also on YouTube.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 01:08 GMT
Jonathan,

It looks interesting.

I have to say, though, that I think order is still emergent from dynamics and Mandelbrot sets are a good expression of this, in that it requires the process of following the steps to create complex structure from simple rules. Their regularity creates the impression they must be fundamental, but I don't think it contradictory to consider order as emergent, because it follows rules. Change an instruction and the patterns change.

It is not as though the result isn't implicit in the process, but that is exactly the point, that the pattern emerges from the process and doesn't exist prior to it.

Pattern describes. Dynamics explains. Energy manifests information, while information defines energy.

Stop the dynamic and you have a pattern, but keeping it going and you have a process.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 02:19 GMT
Of course the form is emergent...

And there are lots of 'Mandelbrot Sets' with different formulas. But the familiar form with z = z2 + c as the formula is maximally complex, when compared to any other polynomial. Likewise; the butterfly figure shows maximum detail when you color in values where the iterand's magnitude decreases over 3 calculation cycles. Why not for 2 or 5 cycles? But those figures are simpler.

I view E8 as the embodiment of maximal symmetry, while the Mandelbrot Set shows the ways symmetry can be broken - in a grand catalog of symmetry breaking forms or modes. So there is an implication that somehow nature knows that these maximally complex examples exist, and it employs them in its handiwork. How cool is that?

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 02:28 GMT
In a kind of fun aside...

It's likely I walked right past the lab of Couder and Fort, at some point in time during FFP11 - which was at Paris Diderot Universite, with sessions in rooms throughout the Physics buildings.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 12:55 GMT
Zeeya,

Important topic. t'Hooft etc seem right in that that de Boglie-Bohm could never give a complete account. I've suggested a completed version consistent with Jonathan's fractal approach. It seems hard to explain but do please advise (anybody!) if this gives an insight to a coherent logic;

The spin-orbit relation in optics is the helical path taken by a spinning 'charge'. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 14:58 GMT
Thanks Peter,

This summary/refresher is helpful. Perhaps the most important point buried in the account above is the idea that points of inflection are "NOTIONALLY 'zero' (flat line = undetectable)," because of gauge invariance, but have an absolute value that becomes relevant in experiments like Mach-Zehnder and Stern-Gerlach, because the 'signal' is spread out, but the split point sets the overall tone.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 15:04 GMT
I think I got that reversed..

The absolute value at the crossing point is normalized by the experimental apparatus (because all part of it share the same displacement from true zero), but the overall tone is impressed upon the whole local universe.

Perhaps you can clarify that point Peter.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 16, 2014 @ 15:47 GMT
Jonathan,

That's certainly one description. In last years essay I intimated that 'inclination' of a wave face corresponds to it's EM energy, so a median 'flat line' ground state value exists undetectably between +1 (peak) and -1 (trough).

i.e. In a fibre optic cable a signal uses 'square' waves, with vertical faces. Nature 'rounds them off', loosing fidelity, so we need amplification stations to sharpen them back up! The vertical lines are the 'switches' (for binary 0,1). If the line goes flat we have ZERO signal. But I say it's only zero at that gauge. If we 'focus in' on the flat line we'll find it's the surface of a smaller 'Dirac Sea' with a smaller gauge (Mandelbrot/fractal) version of the wave pattern.

A slightly different but consistent version of my 'divided photon energy' mechanism then emerges, with the 'crossings' of the median ground state (the most vertical parts of the curve) imparting the most energy. Let's say half the wave 'pattern' goes one way and half the other (randomly). Only ONE of the two parts can ever contain that peak 'switch' energy level, and only THAT half will then produce a quanta on interaction ('measurement').

I find the 3D helix and harmonic resonance derivation the best (and fully consistent with PMD) but the above simplification is easier to visualise.

A number of similar models are possible. None may be correct, but ALL extend the de Broglie Bohm model to replace the false assumptions leading to the illogical conclusions first drawn from twin slit findings and still prevalent in Mach Zehnder analyses. The Huygens-Fresnel principle foundational in optical science can then finally be generalised to all theory.

Or is old theory now too entrenched to see the light? Zeeya?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2014 @ 08:24 GMT
Are we allowed to ponder things like massively complex quantum entanglements that are generally undetectable, but might for example interconnect all biological life on the Earth, for example? What about deconstructing general relativistic geometry down into a weave of quantum entanglements? Can the physics laws, like Maxwell's equations and the Einstein equations be deconstructed into an enormous set of correlations of some quasi-existent wave-functions?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 17, 2014 @ 10:35 GMT
Jason,

On the classical level, I suppose pilot waves are what we would refer to as feedback loops.

In eastern philosophy, as karma.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 18:18 GMT
Hi John,

Feedback loops and karma are of course true. But they're not the only toys in the toybox.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Feedback:

Assume an arbitrary upper and lower bound of density which is distributed in accord with inverse square law along the radius of a spherical volume such that a quantity of whatever medium you choose varies from greatest density at center to least density at the volume boundary. Now, as each successive doubling of radial increment results in an 8-fold increase in volume, the total quantity required to compound the density by the square will always result in the concentric spheres producing a demand that graphs as a linear function until you get to that last volume of 'the glass onion', and then the direction of the function changes. Add another layering, and it does it the same. SO... if you integrate over all those partial differentials you wind up with a feedback at the final boundary instead of having a 'boundary of the boundary' being zero. That's just one of the problems (mathematically) that resulted in the 'zero point particle' assumption, because nobody can say how a finite quantity of energy can be distributed in accord with inverse square law in a spherical volume having a zero difference at the boundary radial limit. Try it yourself. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Mike Cavedon wrote on Sep. 18, 2014 @ 17:36 GMT
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 18:28 GMT
The EPR paradox is telling us that their is more physics, more toys in the toy-box, available that may not be revealed by our current mathematical strategies. For example, if we want faster than light technology, we might have to think outside the box. It might take luck, not mathematics, to find it.

For example, the physics community should convince the government to make the following announcement. That the government will pay $10 billion dollars in gold bullion and gold coins to the first extraterrestrial aliens that will land in their space-craft, and claim it. The government shoud make this announcement, and then see what happens.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 18:32 GMT
We should sweeten the deal by offering all our best treasure to whatever space aliens can claim it. Diamonds, monetary currency, art work, land deeds, stocks, bonds, and then we wait to see what happens.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 22:21 GMT
I think my idea would get us to new physics and new technology than what you're currently doing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2014 @ 22:35 GMT
Offering wealth to whatever extra-terrestrial aliens that can visit us has advantages. First, if ET shows up, you know it's not an invasion Why? Because they already knew we were here, they could have sacked us without our invitation. Second, the aliens know that if they show up, that we're not going to shoot at them. Third, whatever shows up is going to wonder what's going on? Or where to get the treasure. This puts us in a great position to negotiate technology for wealth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Al Schneider wrote on Mar. 4, 2015 @ 09:22 GMT
QED and Light

The impetus for this thread was a suggestion from comments in the latest contest. The suggestion was to continue a conversation in a place other than the contest comments.

I wish to begin this discussion with an idea I have about QED.

My understanding is that photons move through space by entering electrons and then being ejected. They are ejected because the energy in the photon does not match any electron energy levels in the atom associated with this interaction. The photon does not obey reflection when hitting an electron. Rather, it is emitted randomly. Thus, light is going in all directions. Feynman’s point is that this random action and the wave properties of photons add constructively on or near a line between two points. Outside of these two points, the photons add destructively while some image is carried from point A to point B.

To me this suggests that the description of light moving through space is different than appears in most textbooks. I see redefinitions of a light ray and a photon moving through space. A photon is a particle of light traveling from electron to electron. A ray of light is a highly complex network of photons smashing and clashing. The photon that initiates the ray motion only participates in the beginning of the energy transfer. Millions of photons randomly participate in what we call a beam of light traveling from A to B.

Comments?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 4, 2015 @ 12:20 GMT
Al,

I read your reply to my post on your essay thread. I also viewed the preamble written to your book, New Age Quantum Physics, in which you stated that "... The second half of the book essentially begins with a study of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. From this author’s point of view, this is the most proved theory in existence".

This in my opinion is erroneous. If you want to engage in dialectic over this, let us meet either on the Faster than Light, Ripping Einstein Apart or Alternative Model blog which I think is more appropriate to defend or criticize SR.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I am taking you up as I sense if you see what is True, it is unlikely you will call it False.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 18:02 GMT
These posts seem to have stumbling blocks on the suggestion that the walking drop is an analog to the interference experiments. I suggest we start with the idea that the walking drop is an analog to the interference experiments. What are the characteristics of photons and the aether (my plenum) to make this happen?

1st, the drop is matter. The drop induces a wave in the medium just like...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.