Live data from Hacker News

Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

quantamagazine.org

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#61
post #53

I'm a bit sad that they couldn't reproduce the double slit interference pattern. I'm still holding out hope that we'll eventually develop a model of reality where the apparent indeterminism of quantum mechanics can be explained by currently unobservable interactions in higher dimensional space (such as the space described here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-... )

You cannot have (local) hidden variables, Bell showed that. You can have hidden variables only if you forgo locality.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#62
post #53

I'm a bit sad that they couldn't reproduce the double slit interference pattern. I'm still holding out hope that we'll eventually develop a model of reality where the apparent indeterminism of quantum mechanics can be explained by currently unobservable interactions in higher dimensional space (such as the space described here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-... )

What you're describing has been desired by many (including Einstein). However, John Bell more or less proved it impossible[0] in a landmark, sweepingly general result. He would have won a Nobel for it if he had lived long enough. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1]. The fluid analogy is disappointing to…

Thanks for the link to Bell's Theorem (I recalled there being a result like that, but didn't remember the details of it). If the hidden variables really are in a higher dimensional space, then maybe superluminal communication (in our observable dimensions of space) isn't off the table either? But that comes with its own can of worms that would have to be taken care of as well.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#63
post #9

I was thinking about the double-slit problem the other day, and was trying to make connections to any other phenomenon that exists in the natural world and I think I came up with one. In conditional probability theory, there exists something called the boy or girl paradox. The paradox shows that the likelihood of an event can be drastically affected by how you know even seemingly innocuous information. I think that o…

I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you elaborate on how that "paradox" is an analog of the double slit experiment?

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#64
post #58

Bohm's pilot wave theory is interesting to me not because it is so intuitive or tasteful or something, but because it works without sacrificing realism, and thus demonstrates that the Cophenhagen interpretation (neither local nor real) claims strictly more about the nature of the universe than is required by the evidence we have. Nonlocality is established by experiment, non-realism is not. In my experience, this ten…

> but because it works without sacrificing realism, and thus demonstrates that the Cophenhagen interpretation (neither local nor real) claims strictly more about the nature of the universe than is required by the evidence we have

Nicely put!

> Wave function collapse on measurement isn't weird anymore if the wave function represents your knowledge of the system.

To me it is intuitive if you consider that the wave function of the small entity is interacting with the much larger (and more specific) wave function of the observing apparatus. I never understood the mystical aspect with which this was treated in the typical explanations of the Copenhagen interpretation. And I would also appreciate the guidance of someone with a better understanding of the physical theories, if my stated perspective is confused.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#65
post #6

So, am I right in thinking that we have. 1. Theory X hypothesizes Q 2. Phenomenon Y models theory X 3. Phenomenon Y does not demonstrate Q Surely there would be an insurmountable burden of proof on 2. Similarity does not mean identical. For any Y claiming to be the same as X, why can't it be rebutted with a "No it isn't" Proving that they are the same would be a different thing altogether but if as the article sugges…

The whole value of pilot wave theory was that it was an interpretation of QM in terms of things that behaved like ordinary macroscopic particles and waves. Given that ordinary particles and waves don't actually behave like that, there's absolutely no reason to prefer pilot wave theory over simpler, more direct interpretations of QM.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#66
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing has been desired by many (including Einstein). However, John Bell more or less proved it impossible[0] in a landmark, sweepingly general result. He would have won a Nobel for it if he had lived long enough. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1]. The fluid analogy is disappointing to…

Thanks for the link to Bell's Theorem (I recalled there being a result like that, but didn't remember the details of it). If the hidden variables really are in a higher dimensional space, then maybe superluminal communication (in our observable dimensions of space) isn't off the table either? But that comes with its own can of worms that would have to be taken care of as well.

If you give me both sides of a superluminal telephone I can use it along with special relativity to set up a time paradox. If I only have one end of the phone, or if I can't have a phone at all (not all apparently superluminal interactions allow signaling) then it's considered an undesirable trait but not paradoxical.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#68
post #9

I was thinking about the double-slit problem the other day, and was trying to make connections to any other phenomenon that exists in the natural world and I think I came up with one. In conditional probability theory, there exists something called the boy or girl paradox. The paradox shows that the likelihood of an event can be drastically affected by how you know even seemingly innocuous information. I think that o…

I'm having a fundamental problem understanding why the paradox is modeled the way it is. "Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?" For some reason, it's expanded as a choice from {BB, BG, GB, GG}. But why on Earth does the order of children matter in this question? The way I see it, it should be modeled as {both-boys, boy-and-girl, both-girls}; b…

>The way I see it, it should be modeled as {both-boys, boy-and-girl, both-girls}; by telling me that one of the kids is a boy, you eliminated one possibility out of three, leaving us with 1/2 as an answer.

This would be like saying "When I buy a lottery ticket, the only outcomes are {lose lottery, win lottery}; therefore, I have a 50% chance of winning the lottery."

The difference is that boy-girl is twice as likely to occur of those three choices.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#69
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a key point - classical randomness is still causal. QM effectively seems to be non-causal - or at least, much less causal. Tidying this away under the heading of "It's probabilistic, let's just do the math and not worry about why" seems to be ignoring some very basic questions. I can't seriously imagine Newton saying "Well, the Moon stays in the sky instead of falling down - and that's frankly a bit weird, but…

> I can't seriously imagine Newton saying .. But he did. He called it Gravity. He didn't let figuring out "how gravity works" hold him back. He just figured out the equations that predict its effects based on observation. The unknowns happened to conveniently coalesce around a single constant G, but that doesn't make them "known". [IANAP - do we have any convincing popularly accessible models for how gravity works ev…

Actually, both you and GP got it wrong. There is no need to speculate what Newton was thinking, it was all recorded.

Newton was looking for methods to manipulate (push, pull) objects at a distance without touching them. He had strong ideas about the occult and what we today call black magic, in addition to being an alchemist. He devised that the Earth was manipulating the untouched Moon (capitalized, proper noun) and sought to explain the influence of the Earth on the Moon.

Re: Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference

#70

Has anyone done the double slit experiment with the long wall before the slits? I'm not entirely convinced it still works unless it has been demonstrated.

That would be something to directly ask Prof. Bohr who's mentioned in the article.
Post reply on HN