Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics?

Oct 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 , and in a recent commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John Bush, an applied mathematician at MIT who specializes in , suggests that experiments like Couder’s may ultimately shed light on some of the peculiarities of .

The wave-particle duality is best illustrated by a canonical experiment in quantum mechanics that’s 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? It’s 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 rod’s 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 Schrödinger’s equation as instead describing the probability that the photon will be found at a given location. Moreover, until the photon strikes the detector, it’s 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 Couder’s 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, it’s 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, ’ 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 Bush’s commentary, Couder’s 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 Couder’s 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 Couder’s system been known to its founding fathers?”


This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Explore further: The importance of three-way atom interactions in maintaining coherence

Related Stories

Observing a Photon no Longer a Seek-and-Destroy Mission

Jun 02, 2004

A team of University of Queensland, Australia physicists has devised a sophisticated measurement system for single particles of light, or photons, enabling them to investigate fascinating behaviour in the quantum world. ...

Opposites interfere

Jul 26, 2007

In a classic physics experiment, photons (light particles), electrons, or any other quantum particles are fired, one at a time, at a sheet with two slits cut in it that sits in front of a recording plate. For photons, a photographic ...

The noise about graphene

Oct 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In last week’s announcement of the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences lauded graphene’s "exceptional properties that originate from the remarkable world ...

Broken bones and medication

Oct 05, 2010

Although one in four women over 50 develops osteoporosis, most are unaware they have the disease — something Professor Suzanne Cadarette would like to change.

Recommended for you

Finding faster-than-light particles by weighing them

17 hours ago

In a new paper accepted by the journal Astroparticle Physics, Robert Ehrlich, a recently retired physicist from George Mason University, claims that the neutrino is very likely a tachyon or faster-than-light par ...

Controlling core switching in Pac-man disks

Dec 24, 2014

Magnetic vortices in thin films can encode information in the perpendicular magnetization pointing up or down relative to the vortex core. These binary states could be useful for non-volatile data storage ...

World's most complex crystal simulated

Dec 24, 2014

The most complicated crystal structure ever produced in a computer simulation has been achieved by researchers at the University of Michigan. They say the findings help demonstrate how complexity can emerge ...

Atoms queue up for quantum computer networks

Dec 24, 2014

In order to develop future quantum computer networks, it is necessary to hold a known number of atoms and read them without them disappearing. To do this, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute have developed ...

New video supports radiation dosimetry audits

Dec 23, 2014

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL), working with the National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, has produced a video guide to support physicists participating in radiation dosimetry audits.

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nuge
5 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2010
This is amazing. Quantum Mechanics has always been in need of a way to visualise its effects! I can't wait to hear more about this.
CTD1
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 20, 2010
Such visualization may be surprising only for those, who never heard of dense aether theory of Oliver Lodge. Many other quantum phenomena were visualized with using of surface waves already, for example the Hawking radiation, tunneling or double slit experiment.

http://www.physor...511.html
CTD1
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 20, 2010
Quantum Mechanics has always been in need of a way to visualise its effects!

Unfortunatelly, so far the approach of mainstream physics was exactly as opposite:

"Pictures? For what?! Shut up and calculate!"
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2010
... not even one tool is fluiding by our hands ...
MaxwellsDemon
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2010
dense aether theory

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.
CTD1
Oct 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gmurphy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2010
My jaw just dropped reading this article. Quantum mechanics has always been pitched as this "spooky" science, it's a genuine delight to see these guys emulate so many of the unique quantum phenomenon using intuitive physical principles. Well done to them!
CTD1
1.5 / 5 (20) Oct 20, 2010
.. it's a genuine delight to see these guys emulate so many of the unique quantum phenomenon..
I never met with some delight, when I explained quantum physics with intuitive physical principles. The evidence of it is widespread around the web. My posts were always downvoted, when I linked these experiments.
MaxwellsDemon
Oct 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CTD1
Oct 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (50) Oct 20, 2010
Einstein was probably more relevant expert, then just You [...] and he still declared aether necessary.


This is false or at least a misrepresentation...

...we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." - A. Einstein 1920

Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (51) Oct 20, 2010
... obviously, Einstein did not make use of Aether in GR, and in fact completely changed the meaning of Aether from it's classical definition.

the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians like John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found no support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (50) Oct 20, 2010
.. Quantum mechanics has always been pitched as this "spooky" science, it's a genuine delight to see these guys emulate so many of the unique quantum phenomenon using intuitive physical principles.
I never met with some delight, when I explained quantum physics with intuitive physical principles. The evidence of it is widespread around the web. My posts were always downvoted, when I linked these experiments.


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.
CTD1
1.1 / 5 (17) Oct 20, 2010
GR is special theory, in the same way, like the quantum mechanics. As a standalone models of reality both these theories work perfectly. The problem arises, when we try to use them both for prediction of the same quantity, like the cosmological constant. In this moment both these perfectly working theories are suddenly giving predictions, which differ in 107 orders in magnitude. It's too much for many theorists..

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.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 20, 2010
It would be nice to read an article about quantum physics, general relativity or cosmology without this aether nonsense being injected. Look, CTD, or Alizee, or whatever moniker you're using nowadays, here's your problem. Because you refuse to do the hard work of mathematically formalizing your idea, so that there's actually some measurable predictions from it, nobody can tell if there's any merit to it or not, and if nobody can tell, then there isn't. At best, all you've got is a bunch of metaphors that don't naturally illuminate anything without the math. If you think they do, go build an FTL drive in your basement and prove us wrong, and stop trolling physorg.
CTD1
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 20, 2010
..Copenhagen interpretation is .. intrinsically limiting, unnecessary, and a burden on science, to expect an "intuitive understanding" at this level of reality.
Actually the same problem arises with general relativity. For most people many predictions of general relativity are as counter-intuitive, as many insights of quantum mechanics.

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."
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2010
Dense aether theory was proposed by Oliver Lodge before one hundred years and it was never "torpedoed", refused the less - it was simply ignored by mainstream physics.
Just as creationism is ignored by cosmologists, because like creationism, dense aether concept is biblical in nature and unnecessary in the extreme.
CTD1
1.3 / 5 (20) Oct 20, 2010
without this aether nonsense being injected
Why not - but without aether model the coincidence revealed by Couder, Unruh and many others is as ad-hoced, as the formal theories itself: "Wow, QM can be modelled with water, it's miracle..." and so? Does follow something new from it for you? Nothing, really? So why to learn about it, after all?

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.
CTD1
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 20, 2010
dense aether concept is biblical in nature and unnecessary in the extreme.
Actually there is a symmetry, as I can say the development of formal models is unnecessary in principle, because we can model reality with particle simulations at computers. Actually many problems of fluid dynamics are modelled with free particle models by now, because such approach is often more general and stable, then the complex, but poorly conditioned formal models. The evolution is quite apparent here, as many physicists are dealing with condensed phase physics models of vacuum more and more often. We are modelling black hole with metamaterial foams, event horizons with kitchen sinks, double slit experiment with droplet walkers - well, and people with rigid thinking like Skeptic_Heretic are watching all of it wonderingly.

It's a life.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (51) Oct 20, 2010
..Copenhagen interpretation is .. intrinsically limiting, unnecessary, and a burden on science, to expect an "intuitive understanding" at this level of reality.
Actually the same problem arises with general relativity. For most people many predictions of general relativity are as counter-intuitive, as many insights of quantum mechanics.


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.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2010
Sure, intuition leads to less contradiction than a systematic, formal and mathematical theory of how things work, but that's not a good thing. Intuition is less contradictory because it is vaguer, less defined, in other words, it has little content which can be contradicted. Contradiction in formal theories tells us where to look to find new things, far from being detrimental to the ongoing project of science, it is with a contradiction, and the unease it generates that investigation begins. You say an inability to generate contradictions is a plus in your intuitive and ad hoc mixture of metaphors, but those who understand how science works know that it is the gravest flaw it possesses.
CTD1
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 20, 2010
I am NOT saying the Copenhagen interpretation is limiting
You just said, the "The lesson of the Copenhagen interpretation is that it is intrinsically limiting..to expect an "intuitive understanding" at this level of reality." which is actually equivalent to sentence "Copenhagen interpretation is limiting our understanding".

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.
CTD1
Oct 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (51) Oct 20, 2010
No, the expectation of a intuitive understanding implies that Reality CONFORM within an a-priori conceptual scheme. Time, Space and causality are not things in themselves, they are not entities apart from their application in ordering experience for the understanding.

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.
CTD1
1 / 5 (17) Oct 20, 2010
..there only appears to be an underlying reality beneath QM that can be explained
For example so far physicists believed in three generations of particles. Now it seems, the fourth one may exist. If so, why not fifth, sixth and so on?

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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2010
For example so far physicists believed in three generations of particles. Now it seems, the fourth one may exist. If so, why not fifth, sixth and so on?
Because observation hasn't yielded the possibility as of yet. Science doesn't guess and establish, we investigate and follow where the evidence leads. This is probably why you're stuck on Aether.

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.
CTD1
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 20, 2010
Having an answer, without knowing how you got the answer isn't science, nor is it reliable.
This is exactly the approach of quantum mechanics, for example. Or string theory - why some strings should be formed? Why and how Schrodinger equation is working? Why light is spreading in constant speed. It must be some miracle or pseudoscience, nor is it reliable.

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.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2010
This is exactly the approach of quantum mechanics, for example.
No, Quantum Mechanics doesn't have answers, it has calculations, which are the work I was referring to. It is the most accurate theory of reality to date, accurate to 10 decimal places in almost all calculations.

Are you really going to challenge the giant with no evidence?
Or string theory - why some strings should be formed?
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.
CTD1
Oct 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
This idea of a particle riding on some sort of mystery wave is actually very appeasing to my brain. I can accept that the wave particle duality is just the way it is, but being able to imagine this wave riding particle is much nicer. I hope that it turns out to be correct since I've often been uncomfortable with the current explanations of QM. Though, I hope they don't force the issue if it turns out it isn't a correct theory. I'd prefer obscure truths to convenient falsehoods.
DamienS
5 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2010
I hope that it turns out to be correct since I've often been uncomfortable with the current explanations of QM

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!"
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2010
Yes, by now. But at the very beginning, i.e. before hundred years it was just a rough ad-hoced idea of Max Planck
No.
I assure you
You attempt to assure me of a lot of things there, none of which you've substantiated with evidence.
MaxwellsDemon
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2010
This idea of a particle riding on some sort of mystery wave is actually very appeasing to my brain.

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.
hylozoic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
"No, Quantum Mechanics doesn't have answers, it has calculations, which are the work I was referring to. It is the most accurate theory of reality to date, accurate to 10 decimal places in almost all calculations."
Specifically the most accurate mathematical theory of reality to date. Nothing else, to be sure of.
hylozoic
4 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
"Science doesn't guess and establish, we investigate and follow where the evidence leads."
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?
taka
3 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2010
If some encounter the name EATHER the alarm (lean in elementary school) immediately ring : EATHER WAS A FALSE TEORY. No more thinking happens. That it is just a model and good one in some conditions become irrelevant. That something can be modeled by something do not mean that these two are identical is also out of consideration. In conclusion, Dense Ether Theory is flashed down not because it s wrong, but because it mention forbidden word in his name.

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.
beelize54
1 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2010
Specifically the most accurate mathematical theory of reality to date.
In some points only. In another aspects QM belongs into worst theories, instead. The prediction of cosmological constant of quantum mechanics differs from reality in 107 orders of magnitude. This isn't very exact prediction, indeed.

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.
beelize54
Oct 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
beelize54
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 21, 2010
This theory can be good model even if real aether do not exist.
Currently the dense Aether (Boltzmann gas) model can serve as a physically relevant geometric model of emergence and entropy concepts. Modern physics gets entropized and based on emergent geometry. The number of physical articles dedicated to these two concepts increases fast in recent years. But how to model/imagine such abstract concepts in physically realistic way?

Actually whenever we are talking about emergence and/or entropy, we are talking about Boltzmann gas on background.
beelize54
Oct 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
c0y0te
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic

Science doesn't guess and establish, we investigate and follow where the evidence leads.


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.
c0y0te
1 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2010
Aether is an interesting subject. I am not a scientist, and I definitely can't tell if aether (dense or thin) exists or not, but I remember when I first saw the results of Michelson Morley experiment in high school. My first thought was why the hell did they conclude that the slight positive result they've got was not important?

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.
beelize54
1 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2010
In my opinion, first step in any discovery is always either a guess or an accident. Investigation comes after.
IMO every new insight (a new layer of causality) violates entropy arrow. The math rigor is an atemporal formal language, which is not expected to bring new insights ("what you put in is what you get - as permanently, exactly and faithfully, as possible").

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.
beelize54
Oct 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
beelize54
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2010
The Lorentz invariance is actually conceptual stuff if we realize, you cannot observe the (influence of) particles, which are mediating some waves just with the same waves. No pinpoint object can serve as a subject and as a mean of observation at the SAME MOMENT. In strictly causal geometry no object can be observed from inside and outside at the same moment. For surface waves the water surface always appear like void and empty environment - if it wouldn't, then such surface wouldn't be an environment for surface wave spreading. Therefore you cannot detect violation of Lorentz symmetry in any environment under the situation, when the very same wave is used both for observation, both for time and distance interval measurements. The spreading of waves at the water surface doesn't follow Lorentz symmetry, 'cause we are observing them with waves of light, not with surface waves - which doesn't correspond the observation of light waves in vacuum, where only one kind of waves is available.
DamienS
5 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2010
Boy, the Zephir sockpuppet is really getting a workout today...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic

Science doesn't guess and establish, we investigate and follow where the evidence leads.


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.

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"
beelize54
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 21, 2010
Every calculation is based on less or more qualified guess as well. Such guess is used in construction of formal model in form of ad-hoced postulates. When theory is firm at logical level, then the subsequent formal model and calculations based on it are relevant too and it may reveal a flaw in theory - but not before.

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.
TDK
1 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2010
BTW There is a link to original article - as you can see, absolutely no math and connection to quantum theory is presented - just some pictures, historical twaddling and vague description of Couder's experiments at the level, which we can met at many crackpot sites...

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.
BrianH
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
genastrophysicalist ... not even one tool is fluiding by our hands ...

You're obviously visiting sites written in the wrong language. Hint: you write incoherent babbling English. Starting with your screen name.
BrianH
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2010
Sure, intuition leads to less contradiction than a systematic, formal and mathematical theory
...
Contradiction in formal theories tells us where to look to find new things, far from being detrimental to the ongoing project of science, it is with a contradiction, and the unease it generates that investigation begins. You say an inability to generate contradictions is a plus in your intuitive and ad hoc mixture of metaphors, but those who understand how science works know that it is the gravest flaw it possesses.

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.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2010
Formalism is no guarantee of validity, and is very prone to being pushed beyond its proper boundary conditions.
Hi CTD1/taka/beelize54/TDK/BrianH (not to mention ean/JRDarby/VK1/Hunnter/Palli/quasiparticle), is it a formalism to claim that the occurrence of "Boundary condition" and "formalism" in the same statement is a strong indicator for foamy thinking?
TDK
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 29, 2010
I wouldn't say "boundary conditions", rather the "validity scope", but what BrianH has said is basically correct. For example formalism of general relativity cannot say very much about black holes solution beneath event horizon, not saying about central singularity, which serves as a boundary condition for this formalism. In such sentence the usage of both "formalism", both "boundary condition" words gives meaning.

You can train yourself in distinguishing of sloppy thinking from rigorous one at this site...

http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv
vacillate
not rated yet Nov 13, 2010
I don't think they are waves at all. I believe as the proton passes through the slit it leave a charge and as more pass through it creates a bigger charge changing the course of the proton. I'm basically saying it's the atom version of Kelvin water dropper... No waves at all. Just particles and electric charge.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2010
No waves at all. Just particles and electric charge.

Even uncharged particles (like the neutrons) exhibit the double slit interference.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.