Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole]

The modern double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This experiment was performed originally by Thomas Young in 1801 (well before quantum mechanics) simply to demonstrate the wave theory of light and is sometimes referred to as Young’s experiment.[1] The experiment belongs to a general class of “double path” experiments, in which a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Changes in the path lengths of both waves result in a phase shift, creating an interference pattern. Another version is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, which splits the beam with a mirror.Double-slit experiment

To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. These arguments have injected new life into a deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic) theory of the microscopic world first proposed, and rejected, at the birth of quantum mechanics. See:
Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?


The Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16:

In youtube example video given, I must say if you have ever seen Taylor and Hulse’s binary system, I couldn’t help but see some relation. Such rotation, would cause gravitational wave that seems to hold the droplet in position for examination……but the gravitational wave production, is an affect of this rotation so I am puzzled by this.

Natalie Wolchover is pretty good at her job, and I think drew attention to the idea of a Bohemian mechanics/Pilot wave theory. This, as an alteration of choice of quantum mechanics it became clear, how interpretation was pervasive at the time between these two groups, as a point of view. Not saying this is the case, but as I read I see the division between the scientists as to how an interpretation arose between them, some choose one way and others, another. And still they did not discard the world of the two groups but leaned specifically to one side over another.

As de Broglie explained that day to Bohr, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and two dozen other celebrated physicists, pilot-wave theory made all the same predictions as the probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics (which wouldn’t be referred to as the “Copenhagen” interpretation until the 1950s), but without the ghostliness or mysterious collapse.Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

I am looking at the experiment itself as illustrated in my link to youtube video of respective scientists given the relation and analogy used. This is to see the aspect of their relation to something current in our understanding “as observation,” and something much more to it as particle and wave together. Still trying to understand the analogy. In the experiment, what leads the way, the wave, or the particle/droplet? The “wave function” guides the particle/droplet, yes? Why of course, it is called pilot-wave theory.

Before the experiment begins then, you know the particles state “as a wave function,” and given that this is already known, “the particle” rides the wave function, is exemplary of the nature of the perspective in the first place, as to what is already known. Hmmmm….sounds a little confusing to me as I was seeing the waves in the experiment, but given that such state of coalesce exists when experiment is done, raises questions for me about the shaker as a necessity?

 So cosmological you are looking to the past? You look up at the night sky and when were all these messages received in the classical sense but to be an observer of what happened a long time ago. You recognize the pathway as a wave function already before the experimenter of the double slit even begins. It has a trajectory path already given as the wave function is known with regard to A to B. These are not probabilities then, if recognized as potential of the wave function as already defining a pathway.

The pathway expressed as the pattern, had to already been established as a causative event in the evolution in the recognition of a collision course regarding any synchronized event located in the quantum world, as a wave function pattern. You are dealing with a Bohemian interpretation here.


 On the flip side, I see spintronics, as a wave function giving consideration to the y direction. It is a analogy that comes to mind when I think of the fluid. Whether right or not, I see an association.

The idea, as a wave function is seen in regard to this chain as an illustration of the complexity of the fluid surface https://youtu.be/pWQ3r-2Xjeo

To go further then,

Known as a major facet in the study of quantum hydrodynamics and macroscopic quantum phenomena, the superfluidity effect was discovered by Pyotr Kapitsa[1] and John F. Allen, and Don Misener[2] in 1937. It has since been described through phenomenological and microscopic theories. The formation of the superfluid is known to be related to the formation of a Bose–Einstein condensate. This is made obvious by the fact that superfluidity occurs in liquid helium-4 at far higher temperatures than it does in helium-3. Each atom of helium-4 is a boson particle, by virtue of its zero spin.

Bold and underline added for emphasis

A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point macroscopic quantum phenomena become apparent.

So fast forward to the idealistic perception of the analog by comparison in today’s use against a backdrop of the theories and what do we see?

Nevertheless, they have proven useful in exploring a wide range of questions in fundamental physics, and the years since the initial discoveries by the JILA and MIT groups have seen an increase in experimental and theoretical activity. Examples include experiments that have demonstrated interference between condensates due to wave–particle duality,[25] the study of superfluidity and quantized vortices, the creation of bright matter wave solitons from Bose condensates confined to one dimension, and the slowing of light pulses to very low speeds using electromagnetically induced transparency.[26] Vortices in Bose–Einstein condensates are also currently the subject of analogue gravity research, studying the possibility of modeling black holes and their related phenomena in such environments in the laboratory. Experimenters have also realized “optical lattices”, where the interference pattern from overlapping lasers provides a periodic potential. These have been used to explore the transition between a superfluid and a Mott insulator,[27] and may be useful in studying Bose–Einstein condensation in fewer than three dimensions, for example the Tonks–Girardeau gas. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate#Current_research
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s