Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the quantum-reality-is-just-classical-reality-in-really-tiny-bits? dept.

For nearly a century, "reality" has been a murky concept. The laws of quantum physics seem to suggest that particles spend much of their time in a ghostly state, lacking even basic properties such as a definite location and instead existing everywhere and nowhere at once. Only when a particle is measured does it suddenly materialize, appearing to pick its position as if by a roll of the dice. This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic -- that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed -- is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that world-view. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

In a groundbreaking experiment, the Paris researchers used the droplet setup to demonstrate single- and double-slit interference. They discovered that when a droplet bounces toward a pair of openings in a damlike barrier, it passes through only one slit or the other, while the pilot wave passes through both. Repeated trials show that the overlapping wavefronts of the pilot wave steer the droplets to certain places and never to locations in between — an apparent replication of the interference pattern in the quantum double-slit experiment that Feynman described as "impossible ... to explain in any classical way." And just as measuring the trajectories of particles seems to "collapse" their simultaneous realities, disturbing the pilot wave in the bouncing-droplet experiment destroys the interference pattern.

Droplets can also seem to "tunnel" through barriers, orbit each other in stable "bound states," and exhibit properties analogous to quantum spin and electromagnetic attraction. When confined to circular areas called corrals, they form concentric rings analogous to the standing waves generated by electrons in quantum corrals. They even annihilate with subsurface bubbles, an effect reminiscent of the mutual destruction of matter and antimatter particles.

How about it Soylentils. Is there anyone here who groks Quantum Mechanics who would care to explain this in layman's terms? What shortcomings and/or benefits do you see with this theory?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:27PM

    by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:27PM (#62472) Journal

    well, the article points out this is old theorem, apparently "proven" enough that Einstein himself endorsed the idea by the 1950's, but it apparently has no traction do to Bohr's Quantum model that won the argument back in 1930's. it's a sad story of science actually having a working model - but the universities and most scientists either dont know about the theorem - or cling tightly to the bohr model.

    Fortunately there is a 'new' group of researchers who've not only dug out this model but have working experiments to prove it - even if you can't really explain why it works.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by VLM on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:21PM

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:21PM (#62570)

    You make it sound like low carb / paleo weight loss dieting.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MozeeToby on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:26PM

    by MozeeToby (1118) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:26PM (#62573)

    The article makes out like this theory has absolutely no problems with it, which is not the case. Even if it could replicate every prediction of the Copenhagen interpretation (which it can't, though with enough work on the math it probably could) it would still be non-local; that alone makes it a non starter for the vast majority of researchers. Yes, you can make the universe work without locality but you'd better have a much better reason than "well the math looks prettier".

    Also, they haven't "proven" anything with the recent experiments, they've shown that the theory is plausible in that it can generate results substantially similar to the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics by using classical interactions. That's very interesting, but it doesn't imply that the probabilities are fueled by an analogous set of interactions.