Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics?
October 20, 2010 by Larry Hardesty, MIT News
Vibrating a tray of silicone oil causes so-called Faraday waves to form in the oil's surface. Recent experiments in which fluid droplets reproduce the behavior of subatomic particles require holding the intensity of the vibrations just below the Faraday-wave threshold. Credit: John Bush
In the first decades of the 20th century, physicists hotly debated how to make sense of the strange phenomena of quantum mechanics, such as the tendency of subatomic particles to behave like both particles and waves. One early theory, called pilot-wave theory, proposed that moving particles are borne along on some type of quantum wave, like driftwood on the tide. But this theory ultimately gave way to the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, which gets rid of the carrier wave, but with it the intuitive notion that a moving particle follows a definite path through space.
Recently, Yves Couder, a physicist at Université Paris Diderot, has conducted a series of experiments in which millimeter-scale fluid droplets, bouncing up and down on a vibrated fluid bath, are guided by the waves that they themselves produce. In many respects, the droplets behave like quantum particles, and in a recent commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John Bush, an applied mathematician at MIT who specializes in fluid dynamics, suggests that experiments like Couders may ultimately shed light on some of the peculiarities of quantum mechanics.
The wave-particle duality is best illustrated by a canonical experiment in quantum mechanics thats generally referred to as the two-slit, or two-hole, experiment. As the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman 39 once put it, Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? Its the same thing.
Suppose you have a tray of water, and across the middle of the tray is a barrier with two openings in it. At one end of the tray is a vibrating rod, and at the other is a pressure sensor. The rods vibration sends waves across the surface of the water, and when they pass through the openings in the barrier, two new waves form on the opposite side.
On their way to the pressure sensor, these waves run into each other. Where a wave crest meets another crest, they combine to produce a bigger crest. But where a crest and a trough meet, they cancel each other out. The pressure sensor thus registers an interference pattern stripes of various size that represent strong crests, with gaps between them where waves canceled each other out.
So what happens when you shoot light at a detector, through a barrier with two holes in it? Again, you get an interference pattern: light appears to behave like a wave. But light also comes in particles, or photons, which can be fired at the detector one at a time. What happens then?
As the first few photons strike the detector, they leave a seemingly random scattering of dots, like the bullet holes left in a target by a mediocre marksman. But over time, the dots form a pattern the same interference pattern produced by a beam of light. How is that possible, given that the photons were fired one at a time?
Different stories
Pilot-wave theory proposes that the photons ride on the back of some type of mystery waves, which interact with each other no matter the number of photons that pass through the holes. That interaction is what guides the photons to the detector. When the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger proposed his famous wave equation, which remains the fundamental equation of quantum physics, he was actually describing the guiding wave.
Since the Copenhagen interpretation dispenses with the guiding wave, however, it interprets Schrödingers equation as instead describing the probability that the photon will be found at a given location. Moreover, until the photon strikes the detector, its in a sort of metaphysical limbo, with no definite location. As it passes through the holes, it can thus interfere with itself, which explains the interference pattern at the detector.
In formulating his wave equation, Schrödinger was inspired by the theories of Louis de Broglie, who originated pilot-wave theory and whose work on wave-particle duality earned him the 1929 Nobel Prize in Physics. Pilot-wave theory was revived in the 1950s by the physicist David Bohm and still has some proponents, but for the most part, it has faded from view.
Scaling up
In Couders system which Bush plans to explore further at MIT a fluid-filled tray is placed on a vibrating surface. The intensity of the vibrations is held just below the threshold at which it would cause waves so-called Faraday waves on the surface of the fluid. When a droplet of the same fluid is placed on the surface, its initially suspended on a cushion of air. Although the surface of the fluid appears perfectly placid, the vibration of the tray flings the droplet upward before the cushion of air dissolves, and the droplet begins bouncing. The bouncing causes waves, and those waves, in turn, propel the droplet along the surface. Bush and Couder call these moving droplets walkers.
One of their first experiments involved sending walkers towards a slit, Bush says. As they pass through the slit, they appear to be randomly deflected, but if you do it many times, diffraction patterns emerge. That is, the droplets strike the far wall of the tray in patterns that reproduce the interference patterns of waves. Their system is a macroscopic version of the classic single-photon diffraction experiments, Bush says.
Wave-borne fluid droplets mimic other quantum phenomena as well, Bush says. One of these is quantum tunneling, subatomic particles apparent ability to pass through barriers. A walking droplet approaching a barrier across the tray will usually bounce off it, like a hockey puck off the wall. But occasionally, the droplet will take enough energy from the wave that it hops right over the barrier.
In a paper published in the same issue of PNAS, which is the subject of Bushs commentary, Couders group reports its most startling discovery. If the vibrating fluid bath is also rotating, a walking droplet will lock into an orbit determined by the troughs of its wave. The notion that a subatomic particle has only a few allowed orbital states is called quantization, the very phenomenon that gives quantum mechanics its name.
In the early 1800s, the English scientist Thomas Young conducted experiments with ripple tanks to convince the scientific community that light was a wave. With Couders system, one can now explore aspects of wave-particle duality in a fluid system, Bush says. How might the development of quantum mechanics have differed had Couders system been known to its founding fathers?
This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.
Provided by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
28 comments
-
Every black hole contains a new universe: A physicist presents a solution to present-day cosmic mysteries,
212 comments
-
New silicon memory chip developed,
16 comments
-
Computing experts unveil superefficient 'inexact' chip,
45 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
41 comments
-
a numerical problem...kindly provide d solution
4 hours ago
-
energy and momentum conservation
5 hours ago
-
Uniform circular motion (centripetal acceleration & force)
7 hours ago
-
Rotational Mechanics: Sphere collision problem
12 hours ago
-
Combustion Model
12 hours ago
-
Properties of Cathode Rays
13 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - Classical Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Excitons: Exotic particles, chilled and trapped, form giant matter wave
Physicists have trapped and cooled exotic particles called excitons so effectively that they condensed and cohered to form a giant matter wave.
4 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Photonics: Beam me up
'Tractor beams' of light that pull objects towards them are no longer science fiction. Haifeng Wang at the A*STAR Data Storage Institute and co-workers have now demonstrated how a tractor beam can in fact be realized on a ...
7 hours ago |
4.5 / 5 (2) |
0
The neutrinophone: It's not for you. (But it is cool)
First of all, the neutrinophone isnt really a phone. It has the potential to be used for communication across immense distancesincluding into outer spacebut even Jeff Nelson says the neutrinophones ...
10 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Good vibes: Coupling electron spin states and carbon nanotube vibrations
(Phys.org) -- An electron’s spin is separate from its motion, and is suitable for use in both highly-precise magnetic sensing as well as a qubit in quantum computing. Recently, scientists at the University ...
HyperSolar shows dirty water no barrier to power world
(Phys.org) -- The Santa Barbara, California, company, HyperSolar, is set to transparently share the ups and downs of its research experiences toward the companys ultimate vision, successfully producing ...
'Metamaterials,' quantum dots show promise for new technologies
(Phys.org) -- Researchers are edging toward the creation of new optical technologies using "nanostructured metamaterials" capable of ultra-efficient transmission of light, with potential applications including ...
Global warming winner: Once rare butterfly thrives
(AP) -- Global warming is rescuing the once-rare brown Argus butterfly, scientists say.
NASA satellites feed forecasters information as Bud becomes a hurricane
Bud has now become the first hurricane of the eastern Pacific Hurricane Season, as NASA visible and infrared satellite imagery revealed an organized structure of spiraling thunderstorms around the eye. Watches ...
Cyber exercise partners help you go the distance: Motivation gains can double
A new study testing the benefits of a virtual exercise partner shows the presence of a moderately more capable cycling partner can significantly boost the motivation by as much as 100 percent ...
Childhood cancer scars survivors later in life
Scars left behind by childhood cancer treatments are more than skin-deep. The increased risk of disfigurement and persistent hair loss caused by childhood cancer and treatment are associated with emotional distress and reduced ...
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (22)
http://www.physor...511.html
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (19)
Unfortunatelly, so far the approach of mainstream physics was exactly as opposite:
"Pictures? For what?! Shut up and calculate!"
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (8)
It sounds like what they’re saying is that these sub-Faraday-wave dynamics are analogous to vacuum fluctuations (a phenomenon that’s proven experimentally via the Casimir effect, along with the rigorous mathematical formulae of QM that led to the prediction of that effect and a multitude of others).
We don’t need to embrace torpedoed ideas (like ‘aether’), thereby discarding what we know (physics), in order to advance our understanding of reality. In fact, this article suggests that these findings *support* the early interpretations of QM advocated by great physicists like Schrödinger and de Broglie. So this model seems more like a potential explanation of the Copenhagen interpretation, rather than an alternative to it.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (19)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (29)
This is false or at least a misrepresentation...
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (30)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (29)
The lesson of the Copenhagen interpretation is that it is intrinsically limiting, unnecessary, and a burden on science, to expect an "intuitive understanding" at this level of reality.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (17)
http://en.wikiped...astrophe
In dense aether model the general relativity arises from perspective of objects at water surface observed from large distance with using of transverse surface waves. Whereas the quantum mechanics emerges in observation of objects at short distances due the Brownian noise of underwater. In first perspective the water surface will be nearly empty environment. From second perspective the same surface will appear like dense environment.
So you can simulate both relativity, both quantum mechanics phenomena with the same model.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (16)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (19)
Physicists are payed for equations instead of intuitive explanations of reality ("Shut up and calculate") - and as the result we have pile of mutually inconsistent formal theories, whose proponents are fighting each other. This situation is actually quite good for physicists (the more theories, the more jobs remain for theorists) - but for the rest of layman society such outcome is rather annoying.
Albert Einstein: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
Charles Darwin: "A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there."
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (19)
You cannot learn the physics like botanic, consisting of isolated phenomena and theories, which are indeed valid and selfconsistent by itself, but deadly contradicting mutually.
This is exactly the scholastic approach to education, which is criticized with many people by now. You should understand the connections and learn the creative thinking - not the memorizing of facts.
Don't memorize the trees in the wood, learn the ways.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (18)
It's a life.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (30)
Nice editing of my quote. I am NOT saying the Copenhagen interpretation is limiting, I saying that the expectation of a "intuitive understanding" is an unnecessary burden on inductive science.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (14)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (18)
Of course, limited people or theories will never accept, something could be understood deeper - but this it their problem, not mine. We cannot understand the nature of quantum mechanics with using of quantum gravity, because QG is using QM as a background. In the same way you cannot understand the nature of space-time with using of relativity, because relativity doesn't explain, what the time and space are - it just uses them in their equations. We just need to make one step further and to base your ideas on more general models.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (30)
The Copenhagen interpretation is in effect a rediscovery of Kant's transcendental deduction, in which an [intuitive] understanding of reality consists of an a-priori conceptual framework as a form in which Reality is forced into, thus a limiting factor. There only appears to be an underlying reality beneath QM that can be explained, because you impose your bias conceptual scheme upon it forcing Reality into your limiting box.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
This is an example of underlying reality. CMB noise is an example of such reality, too. It wasn't expected, now it's considered real. It seems, the same fluctuations exist inside of atom nuclei, quarks, strings etc. recursively. Colliding particle model is just a model, how to handle such hidden reality - no less, no more. I'm not saying aether is real, because I don't know about it, I even don't care about it. In my opinion Universe appears like infinite random stuff and the nested fluctuations of particle gas is the way, how to model such randomness in physically relevant way. No less, no more.
With full respect to mainstream theories, they're clever, but they're assuming too much about universe. The less you're expecting, the more you get.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Let's say Aether hypothesis explained everything, which it doesn't, no matter how much you want it to. But let's say that the evidence never led us to the aether hypothesis.
Having an answer, without knowing how you got the answer isn't science, nor is it reliable. QM provides observation based evidence, and is the most accurate description of reality that we've come up with as proved in thousands if not millions of experiments to date.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (18)
One of many signs of pathological scepticism is an application of double standards.
Aether model is not completely ad hoced, as it's based on experience, all remote objects appear like colliding particles from sufficiently distant perspective. It they cannot collide, then they're ghosts. If they don't appear like particles, then they're not distant enough.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
Are you really going to challenge the giant with no evidence? Well your question has nothing to do with string theory, but most in science consider string theory to be "philosophy". String Field theory is a different animal. It actually yields predictions, unlike M theory or String theory.
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
There really aren't any explanations of QM. There are various interpretations - take your pick, as they're equally 'correct' and 'incorrect'. It's a philosophical choice, which is why David Mermin said "Shut up and calculate!"
Oct 20, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
One problem with analogues is the temptation to attribute direct physical correspondences to the components of the set-up: for example, there is no “aetherial fluid” pervading spacetime that corresponds to the oil seen here. The energized oil is simply a means by which the researchers can associate a wave with a particle to produce a macroscopic wave-particle system.
The de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory ( http://en.wikiped...m_theory ), considered here, holds that the wave function of a particle is a physical component of the wave-particle system that extends out and interacts with all of the other wave functions in the universe. This is what’s meant by ‘non-locality,’ a fundamental tenant of QM. By associating the wave function with the particle itself, and not an imaginary “aetheric background,” you can understand this theory properly.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Specifically the most accurate mathematical theory of reality to date. Nothing else, to be sure of.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Which sucks when the model employed for investigation a priori recognizes only patterns which fit the model.
Still, at least you get somewhere with a retarded method. But aether? What the morphology is that?
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
This theory can be good model even if real aether do not exist. Just some collective action create a new entity that can be modeled as aether. Happen in the some way as Brownian motion create temperature and pressure and next they create all the rest of fluid dynamic.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
In general, quantum mechanics predicts, all wave packets of observable objects should expand into infinity. The general relativity predicts instead, all objects should collapse into singularities - soon or later.
Because neighboring reality appears relatively stable, we can see at the first look, where are actual limits of mainstream theories.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (18)
Actually whenever we are talking about emergence and/or entropy, we are talking about Boltzmann gas on background.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Watch one of the Feynman's lectures on youtube in which he asked students how did scientists come up with discoveries (or something similar, I don't remember his exact words). After nobody tried to answer he answered it himself: "By guessing."
Students naturally laughed thinking that he was joking, after which he stressed it with a serious tone.
In my opinion, first step in any discovery is always either a guess or an accident. Investigation comes after.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Years and years have passed by, internet emerged etc. :) and I then found about Dayton Miller who continued the aether experiments:
http://www.orgone...ller.htm
Very interesting reading material with references to the citations at the end. I know most of you will instantly dismiss it simply because of mentioning "orgone" in the URL :), but please read it and don't forget that scientists, despite their efforts to be objective are still human beings with various driving forces behind their actions.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
In particle gas the entropy arrow is violated with concentrated action of two or more particles, which are forming density fluctuation temporarily. I presume, the same action occurs when ideas emerge in human brain - the randomly formed collision of neuron soliton waves forms a temporal path, which serves as a switch for circuit, maintaining the new paradigm. We cannot predict ideas and inventions in causal way, but we could simulate them with random collisions of solitons in controlled environment - which is IMO the way, which human brain is using for generation of new ideas.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (16)
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
I've seen/heard all of his recorded lectures and read all of his books.
"Anything that is a guess is junk, until you see something that leads you down the path to make that guess, and then you can calculate the truth. Then you're onto something. You've gotten a peak at nature, but guesses lie. Always calculate."
-Richard Feynman, "Lost Lectures of Richard Feynman"
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (17)
The numeric coincidence of formal model doesn't mean, these models are correct. For example, the fact, we can calculate solar eclipses and/or conjunctions of planets from geocentric theory doesn't mean, this theory is correct, because it still exhibits flaws at the logical level: it doesn't fit the order of Venus phases and/or stellar parallax observations.
This is because formal math is based on predicate logics, not vice-versa: every theorem used in formal math should be proven first in rigorous way - or it remains just a conjecture. We should handle physical theorems in the same way, like these mathematical ones - they should be all based on robust logics.
Oct 21, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
Actually I was a somewhat disappointed, when I've read this article - one could say, water surface is modeling quantum mechanics with the same factual relevance at every blog or Internet forum. Such article could be written during two hours. Nevertheless I'd recommend it for reading to all readers here just because of its accessibility.
http://www.tcm.ph...2010.pdf
BTW I found somewhat funny, when proponents of formal math are fighting for formal math bellow article, which doesn't contain single equation, neither it passed peer-review...;-) We should realize, the actual connection of some experiment to formal theory cannot be proven without some formal math.
Oct 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You're obviously visiting sites written in the wrong language. Hint: you write incoherent babbling English. Starting with your screen name.
Oct 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Don't be so quick. Einstein considered himself a mediocre mathematician, and thought first in pictures, then formalized the results only when he had a picture he liked. Formalism is no guarantee of validity, and is very prone to being pushed beyond its proper boundary conditions. Climate "science" is a hilarious example. It will all end in tears -- equal parts laughter, rage, and sorrow.
Oct 29, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Oct 29, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (16)
You can train yourself in distinguishing of sloppy thinking from rigorous one at this site...
http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv
Nov 13, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Nov 13, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Even uncharged particles (like the neutrons) exhibit the double slit interference.