Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

#2
Cool demonstration :)
Well, this is the De Broglie / Bohm interpretation, aka "hidden variables" interpretation of QM. I am not sure why Bohm is not mentioned in the video since he's the one who expanded De Broglie's orginal idea, which was pretty much dismissed back in the days of the Solvay conference. Or something like that :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory#Bohmian_mechanics

For reasons I don't understand this approach to QM seems much less popular than the full-crazy "many world interpretation"... I guess the latter is probably all the rage among physicists because it catches two birds with a stone, it brings determinism back into QM and kinda solves the fine tuning of the universe issue :D

cheers
 
Last edited:
#3
This video by Derek Muller is not bad. The interference pattern shown at 2 minutes 7 seconds in the video is impressive. It is figure 3 on this Physical Review Letters article: http://dualwalkers.com/PDF/P6_2006_Single_Particle_PRL.pdf by Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort.

However, I suspect these results are a little bit "too good to be true". They have been critized by Andersen et al. (see http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.013006 ) who wrote:
In a thought-provoking paper, Couder and Fort [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 154101 (2006)] describe a version of the famous double-slit experiment performed with droplets bouncing on a vertically vibrated fluid surface. In the experiment, an interference pattern in the single-particle statistics is found even though it is possible to determine unambiguously which slit the walking droplet passes. Here we argue, however, that the single-particle statistics in such an experiment will be fundamentally different from the single-particle statistics of quantum mechanics. ... To support our conclusions, we have carried out our own double-slit experiment, and our results, in particular the long and variable slit passage times of the droplets, cast strong doubt on the feasibility of the interference claimed by Couder and Fort.

In a previous article (published only on arxiv.org, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0466v1.pdf ), the same Danish group said:
In a paper from 2006, Couder and Fort [1] describe a version of the famous double slit experiment performed with drops bouncing on a vibrated fluid surface, where interference in the particle statistics is found even though it is possible to determine unambiguously which slit the “walking” drop passes. ... In the present comment we first point out that the experimental data presented in [1] are not convincing, and secondly we argue that it is not possible in general to capture quantum mechanical results in a system, where the trajectory of the particle is well-defined.

As far as I know, the interference experiment of Couder and Fort has never been replicated by anyone else.
 
Last edited:
#4
This video by Derek Muller is not bad. The interference pattern shown at 2 minutes 7 seconds in the video is impressive. It is figure 3 on this Physical Review Letters: http://dualwalkers.com/PDF/P6_2006_Single_Particle_PRL.pdf by Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort.

However, I suspect these results are a little bit "too good to be true". They have been critized by Andersen et al. (see http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.013006 ) who wrote:
In a thought-provoking paper, Couder and Fort [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 154101 (2006)] describe a version of the famous double-slit experiment performed with droplets bouncing on a vertically vibrated fluid surface. In the experiment, an interference pattern in the single-particle statistics is found even though it is possible to determine unambiguously which slit the walking droplet passes. Here we argue, however, that the single-particle statistics in such an experiment will be fundamentally different from the single-particle statistics of quantum mechanics. ... To support our conclusions, we have carried out our own double-slit experiment, and our results, in particular the long and variable slit passage times of the droplets, cast strong doubt on the feasibility of the interference claimed by Couder and Fort.

In a previous article (published only on arxiv.org, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0466v1.pdf ), the same Danish group said:
In a paper from 2006, Couder and Fort [1] describe a version of the famous double slit experiment performed with drops bouncing on a vibrated fluid surface, where interference in the particle statistics is found even though it is possible to determine unambiguously which slit the “walking” drop passes. ... In the present comment we first point out that the experimental data presented in [1] are not convincing, and secondly we argue that it is not possible in general to capture quantum mechanical results in a system, where the trajectory of the particle is well-defined.

As far as I know the interference experiment of Couder and Fort has never been replicated by anyone else.
Hmm good to know.
 
Top