|
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
quote [ 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 worldview. ]
Finally found something to post on the new site that seems interesting. Python fun in the extended.
Just so pleased SE came back.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/monty-python-songs/
|
Comments
 |
Ankylosaur said @ 3:03pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
If the interference pattern on the other side of the double slits is caused by pilot waves, then wouldn't a second stream of particles on that side, say aimed perpendicular to the slit wall, change the pattern in a way that wouldn't happen under quantum mechanics?
|
|
damnit said @ 6:25pm GMT on 1st Jul
It's possible the medium used for measurement is bouncing around the pilot waves. Maybe pilot waves are undetected by instruments they are using... Possibly dark energy). The act of observing changes the result in the slit experiment.
#ICantEven |
|
midden said @ 8:36pm GMT on 1st Jul
If I read the article correctly, the ripples are in space-time itself, so I'm guessing pretty tricky to detect. Also, if I read one paragraph correctly, the particles themselves could be vortices of space-time. I'm guessing this whole bouncing droplets thing, if it turns out to be a correct way of interpreting quantum phenomena, is more of a simile or metaphor for a mathematical model that shares many behavioral characteristics.
|
|
mechavolt said @ 6:50pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
As an armchair physicist, I can comfortably say that either this is a profound discovery or an unfortunate misdirection.
|
|
arrowhen said @ 7:37pm GMT on 1st Jul
As a barstool physicist, I just had a profound revelation on the subject that unfortunately I'll forget all about as soon as I get up to pee.
|
|
Bruceski said @ 9:15pm GMT on 1st Jul
As the son of a physicist who grew up around a lot of physicists and has studied physics, I am inherently wary of articles that say "have we been wrong this whole time". A lot of the time more primitive physical theories are not wrong so much as they are "not the whole story."
|
|
Bruceski said @ 9:16pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:2 Underrated]
“Quantum mechanics is very successful; nobody’s claiming that it’s wrong,” said Paul Milewski, a professor of mathematics at the University of Bath in England who has devised computer models of bouncing-droplet dynamics. “What we believe is that there may be, in fact, some more fundamental reason why [quantum mechanics] looks the way it does.”
And there we go. A page deep into the article is a quote that undermines its own title. This is why scientists don't like journalists. |
|
Dumbledorito said @ 9:30pm GMT on 1st Jul
Right. Astronomical models of the (discovered) solar system worked for hundreds of years. They were "right" in their predictions as far as they went, but later on were shown to be incorrect in many of their assumptions and conclusions.
|
|
ethanos said @ 7:09pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
I did the double-slit thing with light about 45 years ago when I was a high school physics student. I couldn't get it to work... probably because my slit material (balsa wood) was too crude... I should have used razor blades. I intended to record the patterns on photographic paper but nothing would work. So I faked the results and got a great grade. Years later I heard my apparatus is still on display in the physics room.
|
|
Dumbledorito said @ 7:23pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:1 Informative]
Tell them they should just put up a monitor showing the experiment using chickens in Minecraft:
|
|
steele said @ 11:29pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:1 Good]
 |
|
damnit said @ 6:21pm GMT on 1st Jul
It's really crazy reading this. I got goosebumps. What if the light waves in the double-experiment dissipated into a secondary state, which acts as the pilot waves?
My brain is like "What? Nuh uh! It can't possibly be that simple, can it?" |
|
damnit said @ 7:22pm GMT on 1st Jul
We need a +1 Joecam.
Too soon? |
|
arrowhen said @ 8:12pm GMT on 1st Jul
Hasn't it been like five years?
|
|
damnit said @ 9:28pm GMT on 1st Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
 |
|
Ankylosaur said @ 9:42pm GMT on 1st Jul
Deputies mistake Nickelback music reference for drug deal landing Idaho man in cuffs
Two Idaho cops detained a man after mistaking his gripes about the Canadian rock band, Nickelback, for an alleged drug deal. |
|
arrowhen said @ 11:25pm GMT on 1st Jul
Lucky for them it was just Nickleback and not the Rev...
|
|
Bruceski said @ 9:34pm GMT on 1st Jul
Slogging through the article's attempt to paint it as a large disagreement, it seems the actual position is "we've found some physical effects which seem to have a similar result to quantum physics. That doesn't mean Quantum works the same way, but we're going to poke at it some more and see what happens."
|
|
rndmnmbr said @ 10:16pm GMT on 1st Jul
Isn't that the standard for science journalism these days, though?
Headline: "NEW RESEARCH PROVES EVERYTHING WE EVER KNEW WAS WROOOOOOONG!!!" Actual science covered in the article: "We found something a bit funny, so we're going to poke at it a bit and see if we learn anything new." |
|
arrowhen said @ 11:27pm GMT on 1st Jul
|
|
donnie said @ 11:20pm GMT on 1st Jul
This still doesn't explain things like the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. In fact, it also doesn't explain even the double-slit experiment where which-path information is known (and there is no interference pattern).
|
|
arrowhen said @ 11:43pm GMT on 1st Jul
|
|
gdoube said @ 6:15am GMT on 2nd Jul
I think the Bohm interpretation states that the wavefunction acts on the particle but that there is no reciprocation - the particle doesn't affect the wavefunction. However the bouncing oil droplet is the thing making the waves in the fluid - isn't it? or have I misread something?
|
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
